Guns, Guns, Guns...

[Darth Wong]

Actually, while guns do feature in some crimes of passion, such crimes by no means constitute "most gun crimes".

Crimes of passion are not limited to domestic violence. The asshole who gets kicked out of a party or nightclub, goes to his car, and comes back with a handgun is basically engaging in a crime of passion. If there were no gun in his car, the drunken moron would probably try to engage with his fists or a crowbar, with much lower likelihood of lethal damage.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually, while guns do feature in some crimes of passion, such crimes by no means constitute "most gun crimes".

Crimes of passion are not limited to domestic violence. The asshole who gets kicked out of a party or nightclub, goes to his car, and comes back with a handgun is basically engaging in a crime of passion. If there were no gun in his car, the drunken moron would probably try to engage with his fists or a crowbar, with much lower likelihood of lethal damage.

However, IMHO, in this scenario a bouncer similarly armed would present a greater deterrent to the aggressor than an unarmed bouncer. There might still be fatalities, but a sufficiently armed, protected (body armor) and trained individual should at the very least be able to minimize the casualties by bringing the violence to an earlier close than would be possible if the aggressor was the only armed individual.

[Darth Wong]

However, IMHO, in this scenario a bouncer similarly armed would present a greater deterrent to the aggressor than an unarmed bouncer. There might still be fatalities, but a sufficiently armed, protected (body armor) and trained individual should at the very least be able to minimize the casualties by bringing the violence to an earlier close than would be possible if the aggressor was the only armed individual.

Guns are lethal weapons and it's difficult to use them when your job is to keep the peace. Besides, I've watched "True Stories of the Highway Patrol". The aggression of a drunken moron does not seem to be tempered by the fact that the cop in front of him has a gun. The gun doesn't seem to deter the idiot unless it's actually drawn and pointed at him, and sometimes not even then.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually, while guns do feature in some crimes of passion, such crimes by no means constitute "most gun crimes".

Are most murders, particularly of friends and relatives, committed by otherwise peaceful citizens who happen to have loaded guns available in a moment of anger, and who make one slip? Rarely. Domestic homicide usually is a terminal episode in a syndrome of violence rather than an isolated event. When a husband kills a wife, it usually is with his fists or a bludgeon, and he has beaten her many times before. Significantly, if a firearm is used when one spouse kills another, it more often is the wife who uses it in defense against her larger, more aggressive male partner (Source: Cynthia K. Gillespie, in Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self-Defense and the Law (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989)). Most of these wives are never indicted because they are legally defending themselves or their children.

About 40 percent of defensive gun uses are connected with assaults in the home, and most presumably are cases of family violence. But the notion that much serious violence is accounted for by previously nonviolent people in "crime-of-passion" domestic homicides is wrong. For example, in a Kansas City study, in nine out of ten domestic "crime-of-passion" homicides, police had responded to disturbance calls at the same address within the preceding two years an average of five times (This tallies with my experience as a police officer; we have "regular customers"). Moreover, it's not clear what difference gun control laws would make. A large number of men who kill in these circumstances have a previous history of convictions and, as felons, are forbidden by current law to have a gun.

"Crimes of Passion" include not only domestic violence, as Darth Wong pointed out, and not even drug- (including alcohol) induced public fights. A major new (well, not really new) form of violence in this country, "road rage" is becoming increasingly deadly as well.

The problem with gun laws in this country, as I see it, (note the caveat) is that, without infringing on Second Amendment guarantees, they are easily skirted by criminals. They are also too draconian now -- any felony, in this country, will bar you from gun ownership. Any felony, even white collar crimes, which have zero violence involvement.

Were I to revise these laws, I would do three things immediately:

1) Implement biometrics-based background checks, to prevent weapons acquisition under false identities along with a security standard for firearms manufacturers mandating that future weapons feature a fingerprint reader and electronic firing-pin lock on the weapon, so that no one other than the legally registered owner of the weapon could fire it. Ever. This would prevent third-party weapons purchases, as well as immediately establish the identity of the operator of a weapon in any crime.

2. Revise gun ownership laws to discriminate between violent and nonviolent crimes, rather than by felony or misdemeanor classifications.

3. Implement weapons-education classes in the educational system, in order to remove both the stigma and the mystique from firearms. Firearms, like sex, are exciting to kids, in my experience. And just as sex has the potential to prove deadly, firearms do as well, even more so -- and certainly more blatantly. Removing their mystery and "forbidden" allure, as well as educating kids about their deadly effects may dissuade the rebellious "I'm gonna play with it cause I'm not supposed to" attitude.

[Coyote]

(re: Explosives-- Coyote)
i still can´t see the basic difference. explosives when in hand of law abiding people will only be used in areas where they don´t harm anybody such as designated areas. ... what´s the big difference?

Well, it was the argument that "if you can have a gun, then I can have a grenade/missile/nuke". They way that they are used, and the ability of the user to control their effects, is not the same. I would never advocate using a grenade to defend yourself from a mugger-- you'll kill or injure the mugger, yourself, your family, and several innocent bystanders. If you have a gun (I'm assuming you know how to use it of coure) you just hit the bad guy.

As for uns and home secuity-- in areas where there are high rates of gun ownership (such as Boise, where I live) there are no home-invasion style robberies, and robbers only break in when they are sure that no one is home. They'd nver break in when people are present, they're terrified of getting shot! And I think that it is the criminals who should be terrified-- not citizens.

Canada and Switzerland are areas where guns are present but violence rare-- another odd comparison is Israel, where there are military weapons in most homes, yet gun crime is very low per capita. (there's enough political violence ot go around!). So even in aggressive cultures there are ways to sidestep gun violence despite having plenty of them around.

But in all these societies, there is a difference I"ve noticed that America does not share-- there is much, much more of a sense of community and social conscience/awareness. I am all for the individual and individual endeavor, but I do sometimes think that in the US we take individualim to radical extremes, so that social responsibility is out the door.

We have this fear that "community" means giving up identity and becoming Borg drones of the government. I find this so funny, in the country that mass-produces food, fashion, and cars through mass-market images and media-designed social norms of conformity... as well as violence.

In the US entertainment industry, violence is cool and the only way to solve the problem. The guy doesn't get the girl, the money, or the respect until he gets violent.

And economic inequalities drive people into crime-- one of the side-effects of the strong '90's economy was the low crime rate as more people got jobs and a place on the prosperity bus.

Oddly enough, the number of gun owners and NRA members also increased during this time, and groups like HCI lost a lot of funding-- many states allowed "concealed carry" laws and saw corresponding drops in crime.

It is, as we all can see, many many factors at once.

[Coyote]

Other things to consider--

The National Instant Check System nees to be coordinated between all 50 states and possibly with Canada, so that cross-border criminals cannot buy weapons in new locales. Also, people with histories of mental problems that would preclude gun ownership also need to be flagged. Same with ex-felons.

There should be a graduated scale of punishments for weapon use in crimes, non-negotiable. Show a gun and demand money? 5 years. Take it out and wave it? +3 years. Point it at someone? Another +5 years. Fire a shot? +5 years. Hit someone? +5. Injure him? +5. Kill someone? +10. All together... upwards of 30 years. I'm sure a better system can be thought up, but you see what I'm getting at.

And the prisons have got to be designed for rehab, not animalizing.

[Mr Bean]

Implement biometrics-based background checks, to prevent weapons acquisition under false identities along with a security standard for firearms manufacturers mandating that future weapons feature a fingerprint reader and electronic firing-pin lock on the weapon, so that no one other than the legally registered owner of the weapon could fire it. Ever. This would prevent third-party weapons purchases, as well as immediately establish the identity of the operator of a weapon in any crime.

Wonderful idea, If we could make somthing that small


There is no system in exsitance that could do what you want, Nor is their anything it the for-seeable future small enough and strong enough to do what you want and not be increably easy to buypass

Remeber, Crowbar>Gun Locks

[Coyote]

Even though the technology is still probably 30 yeras off (barring miraculous discoveries), I love the personalized gun system. I mean, you could leave AK-47s lying around in a prison and it would be useless. Gun control argumetns would dry up, mostly.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

(re: Explosives-- Coyote)
i still can´t see the basic difference. explosives when in hand of law abiding people will only be used in areas where they don´t harm anybody such as designated areas. ... what´s the big difference?

Well, it was the argument that "if you can have a gun, then I can have a grenade/missile/nuke". They way that they are used, and the ability of the user to control their effects, is not the same. I would never advocate using a grenade to defend yourself from a mugger-- you'll kill or injure the mugger, yourself, your family, and several innocent bystanders. If you have a gun (I'm assuming you know how to use it of coure) you just hit the bad guy.

As for uns and home secuity-- in areas where there are high rates of gun ownership (such as Boise, where I live) there are no home-invasion style robberies, and robbers only break in when they are sure that no one is home. They'd nver break in when people are present, they're terrified of getting shot! And I think that it is the criminals who should be terrified-- not citizens.

Canada and Switzerland are areas where guns are present but violence rare-- another odd comparison is Israel, where there are military weapons in most homes, yet gun crime is very low per capita. (there's enough political violence ot go around!). So even in aggressive cultures there are ways to sidestep gun violence despite having plenty of them around.

But in all these societies, there is a difference I"ve noticed that America does not share-- there is much, much more of a sense of community and social conscience/awareness. I am all for the individual and individual endeavor, but I do sometimes think that in the US we take individualim to radical extremes, so that social responsibility is out the door.

Well, this is where you and I diverge -- I agree with you on the lack of responsibility, but I don't think it's social responsibility that's lacking. Everybody seems to be worried about what the other person thinks, even if it is an avoidance/adversarial kind of issue. I think it's personal responsibility that's gone out the window. We're focused more on keeping up appearances than doing the right thing, because most of us have been told all our lives that there isn't any right thing anymore, and we should just do whatever feels good right now.

We have this fear that "community" means giving up identity and becoming Borg drones of the government. I find this so funny, in the country that mass-produces food, fashion, and cars through mass-market images and media-designed social norms of conformity... as well as violence.

Now there's where the social irresponsibility comes in; the media has, in part, created a culture of conformity. But there's also a subculture in the media which rebels against conformity, and the depictions of this rebellion are often characterized by depictions of either heroic violence or totally gratuitous violence. Isn't institutional MPD interesting?

In the US entertainment industry, violence is cool and the only way to solve the problem. The guy doesn't get the girl, the money, or the respect until he gets violent.

This also ties into the media misandry issue I've been discussing in another thread. The correlation isn't entirely dead-center here, though. Keep in mind that the mere inclusion of violence in media does not, by itself, have a correlation; I say this because American media has always been violent to some degree or another, but the problem seems to have gotten far worse in the last 20-25 years, disparity between real violence and media violence widening rapidly.

And economic inequalities drive people into crime-- one of the side-effects of the strong '90's economy was the low crime rate as more people got jobs and a place on the prosperity bus.

Oddly enough, the number of gun owners and NRA members also increased during this time, and groups like HCI lost a lot of funding-- many states allowed "concealed carry" laws and saw corresponding drops in crime.

Which, IMO, pretty effectively puts to bed the "less guns, less crime" concept. Guns may aid in the commission of crime, but they also aid in deterrent of it just as well.

So, while guns produce more crime-related fatalities (but not necessarily more crime) and since they also appear to be an effective deterrent to both violent and nonviolent crime, are there any other reasons why guns are the scorn of groups like HCI?

It is, as we all can see, many many factors at once.[/quote]

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

However, IMHO, in this scenario a bouncer similarly armed would present a greater deterrent to the aggressor than an unarmed bouncer. There might still be fatalities, but a sufficiently armed, protected (body armor) and trained individual should at the very least be able to minimize the casualties by bringing the violence to an earlier close than would be possible if the aggressor was the only armed individual.

Guns are lethal weapons and it's difficult to use them when your job is to keep the peace. Besides, I've watched "True Stories of the Highway Patrol". The aggression of a drunken moron does not seem to be tempered by the fact that the cop in front of him has a gun. The gun doesn't seem to deter the idiot unless it's actually drawn and pointed at him, and sometimes not even then.

Right, which is why I mentioned an "earlier close" to the violence.

Put it like this:

Armed attacker massacres 30 unarmed people < Armed attacker shoots 1-2 people and is himself shot dead by armed resister.

Sometimes violence is going to happen regardless if deterrents. At that point, the option of responding with deadly force to end the attack, and potential further casualties, is desirable.

[Beowulf]

Are you affraid of what I MIGHT do with the weapon?

yes!

Well... I'm afraid of what you might do with that kitchen knife. LET'S BAN KNIVES!

[Kamakazie Sith]

Criminals don't commit crimes because they have guns, they have guns because they want to commit a crime, so I'd expect not a decline of crimes,
but a shift to other potentially dangerous household implements-related crimes

Aye, thats true, without guns you would expect there to be an increase in stabbings & beatings. But you do have a decrease in people 'planning' a crime because they fear that without a gun they wouldn't be able to pull it off.

However you have to wonder whether the level of violent crime is because of access to guns or because of some other societal factor.

Punishment isn't severe enough.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Well, I need to revisit the influence HiPop has on such statistics -- I wonder, Mike, if you possibly misconstrued my meaning. I acknowledge that in terms of sheer population, Toronto is in fact as you say, one of the 5 largest metropoli in N. America. Where I think I went wrong in my argument is that I failed to really make myself clear. When I was talking about population density I was thinking of just that -- the average number of people living/working/playing within a given unit area (think in # of peeps per sq. mile or km, rather than population within an arbitrary metropolitan entity such as The City of Toronto). depending on the actual area covered by the city, and how it's available area is zoned, 5 million people might not really add up to the kind of pop density I was thinking of.

In any event I was only really thinking of it as a data point to be considered, and not an end all be all explanation.

as to the intelligence of people who might attempt to make guns for criminal purpose: I am not saying that they would all go out and start making their own. rather there would be a smaller # of skilled individuals who, supplied & funded in secret by larger organizations or simply thru their own marketing would develop the weapons. the genie of the gun, and all of the techniques that go into them, is out... no one can put it back in.

[Darth Wong]

Well, I need to revisit the influence HiPop has on such statistics -- I wonder, Mike, if you possibly misconstrued my meaning. I acknowledge that in terms of sheer population, Toronto is in fact as you say, one of the 5 largest metropoli in N. America. Where I think I went wrong in my argument is that I failed to really make myself clear. When I was talking about population density I was thinking of just that -- the average number of people living/working/playing within a given unit area (think in # of peeps per sq. mile or km, rather than population within an arbitrary metropolitan entity such as The City of Toronto). depending on the actual area covered by the city, and how it's available area is zoned, 5 million people might not really add up to the kind of pop density I was thinking of.

In any event I was only really thinking of it as a data point to be considered, and not an end all be all explanation.

Since there is no real evidence that gun violence is correlated with population density OUTSIDE the United States with its "donut cities" (hollowed out part in the middle), it's really irrelevant. The point stands that America is far more violent than Canada, even with a similar rate of gun ownership. And blaming criminals for the crime (while not a point you personally tried to make) is a tautology; of course they cause the violent crime, but what causes them to become violent criminals?

as to the intelligence of people who might attempt to make guns for criminal purpose: I am not saying that they would all go out and start making their own. rather there would be a smaller # of skilled individuals who, supplied & funded in secret by larger organizations or simply thru their own marketing would develop the weapons. the genie of the gun, and all of the techniques that go into them, is out... no one can put it back in.

Ah, so you're talking about an ingenious businessman setting up his own secret manufacturing business to make and sell weapons and ammo on the black market? Such operations would be a helluva lot easier to catch than people nabbing guns from a huge legitimate and loosely regulated gun trade, as it is right now.

[Cap'n Hector]

Implement biometrics-based background checks, to prevent weapons acquisition under false identities along with a security standard for firearms manufacturers mandating that future weapons feature a fingerprint reader and electronic firing-pin lock on the weapon, so that no one other than the legally registered owner of the weapon could fire it. Ever. This would prevent third-party weapons purchases, as well as immediately establish the identity of the operator of a weapon in any crime.

Wonderful idea, If we could make somthing that small


There is no system in exsitance that could do what you want, Nor is their anything it the for-seeable future small enough and strong enough to do what you want and not be increably easy to buypass

Remeber, Crowbar>Gun Locks

There's already one decent system in existence. It's not perfect, but perfect is hard to come by. The owner of the gun wears a ring that transmits a code to the gun, the gun recieves the code and unlocks. The radius of the transmitter is a few feet, so it makes it hard (but not impossible, I know) to steal the gun and use it.

I saw it reported in PopSci a few years ago.

[Cap'n Hector]

Are you affraid of what I MIGHT do with the weapon?

yes!

Well... I'm afraid of what you might do with that kitchen knife. LET'S BAN KNIVES!

This was covered. Guns > knives. It's a rare knife that lets you kill someone who is 50 feet away...

Plus, it's always struck me as an immature response. If you'd like to make a real point, then make one.

If you haven't noticed, there are different grades of knives, and they cut in different ways. I've got some nice cleavers that I could nicely fillet someone with, and a Chinese vegetable knife that could make an excellent dent in a skull. It's a rare day, however, that I take these knives with me anywhere. In any case, it's harder to find a use for a gun that doesn't involve shooting...which can be fatal to someone*. Overall, if I'm using a cleaver to mince parsly, there's a low chance of death...

*Yes, it doesn't have to be. I know. Now go use that gun to chop garlic. I use my knives for that...

[Perinquus]

Guns are lethal weapons and it's difficult to use them when your job is to keep the peace.

I don't know Mike, so far I think I've managed it pretty well. I've had to handle suspects at gunpoint on more than one occasion.

Besides, I've watched "True Stories of the Highway Patrol". The aggression of a drunken moron does not seem to be tempered by the fact that the cop in front of him has a gun. The gun doesn't seem to deter the idiot unless it's actually drawn and pointed at him, and sometimes not even then.

Then this is the kind of guy who's likely to get himself shot. Frankly, no great loss to society as far as I'm concerned. If he's trying to confront an armed officer with a weapon of his own, he gets shot. If he tries to confront an armed officer with just his fists, he gets a beat down.

But the point is, it's very, very rare for the kind of person who possesses and/or carries a gun legally to be the sort of person who would engage in this kind of idiotic and hyper-aggressive behavior. I remember posting a statistic in an earlier thread similar to this one which showed that only .008 percent of the concealed carry permits issued in Florida between 1987 and 1993 had to be revoked because the gun was present at the scene of a crime (I believe the number of revoked permits was 17). And not all of these crimes were violent, a gun was not used in all of them, it was merely present.

The kind of guy who would become enraged at a bar, and whip out a gun, is almost certainly the kind of guy who does not have a permit, and for whom it is not legal to carry. In fact, if he's that violent, it's a pretty damn good bet he's got a history of violence and criminal convictions, and it would already be illegal for him even to possess a gun, therefore piling on some more gun control laws is not the solution here.

The kind of people who get permits - who voluntarily get fingerprinted, subject themselves to criminal background checks (at more than one stage of the process I might add), pay to undertake the mandated firearms safety training, etc. are simply not the people you need to be afraid of.

[Perinquus]

There's already one decent system in existence. It's not perfect, but perfect is hard to come by. The owner of the gun wears a ring that transmits a code to the gun, the gun recieves the code and unlocks. The radius of the transmitter is a few feet, so it makes it hard (but not impossible, I know) to steal the gun and use it.

I saw it reported in PopSci a few years ago.

In this case, nothing less than perfect will suffice. Think about it. What do you need a gun for (assuming you're not a criminal yourself)? Self defense against a potentially deadly assault right? This means that unless you can successfully defend yourself, you stand a real chance of being killed or seriously injured. Now would you consider it acceptable to confront such a threat with a self defense tool that will only function, say 85% of the time? I wouldn't.

The current technology simply does not permit the "smart gun" to be foolproof. Maybe one day it will, but right now it doesn't. Facing a deadly threat with a weapon that is less than completely reliable is a good way to get yourself killed. Look at it this way: if right now, that system came into use as it is, a relatively small, but significant percentage of officers, and civilians using their weapons for self defense would stand to lose their lives when the smart chip fails to work properly.

Given the purpose of a gun, and the dire and desperate circumstances under which it tends to be needed, a so-called "smart gun" is just not a realistic prospect until the technology is greatly improved.

[MKSheppard]

*Yes, it doesn't have to be. I know. Now go use that gun to chop garlic. I use my knives for that...

*Blam*

*sound of Deer hitting forest floor*

Yum, we're having Venison tonight!

[Colonel Olrik]

*Yes, it doesn't have to be. I know. Now go use that gun to chop garlic. I use my knives for that...

*Blam*

*sound of Deer hitting forest floor*

Yum, we're having Venison tonight!

That's why nobody is advocating the banning of hunting guns, and alike. Together with licenses to own one which are not a joke. Many people here,living in the country, own a gun, and I'm fine with that.

However, the necessity of handguns and automatic rifles, for instance, is highly debatable. Here, it's not forbidden (I could own one) but strictly ruled, including extensive courses. In the end, it's a matter of culture. The society just doesn't find them useful, and people usually don't feel the need for them, so they're are not sold, so they can't become popular. It's a self feeding cycle.

[MKSheppard]

However, the necessity of handguns and automatic rifles, for instance, is highly debatable.

There's a very popular sport here in the US involving using modified
handguns to hunt (!).

Basically, a small scope is fitted to the handgun, and you go off and bag
bambi with it (apparently rifles are too easy for some people )

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Implement biometrics-based background checks, to prevent weapons acquisition under false identities along with a security standard for firearms manufacturers mandating that future weapons feature a fingerprint reader and electronic firing-pin lock on the weapon, so that no one other than the legally registered owner of the weapon could fire it. Ever. This would prevent third-party weapons purchases, as well as immediately establish the identity of the operator of a weapon in any crime.

Wonderful idea, If we could make somthing that small


There is no system in exsitance that could do what you want, Nor is their anything it the for-seeable future small enough and strong enough to do what you want and not be increably easy to buypass

Remeber, Crowbar>Gun Locks

There's already one decent system in existence. It's not perfect, but perfect is hard to come by. The owner of the gun wears a ring that transmits a code to the gun, the gun recieves the code and unlocks. The radius of the transmitter is a few feet, so it makes it hard (but not impossible, I know) to steal the gun and use it.

I saw it reported in PopSci a few years ago.

Actually, there is a biometric system that small -- witness the HP IPAQ h5450. A PocketPC equipped with a fingerprint scanner not much larger than, well, your fingerprint. And what I was talking about is a lock on the firing mechanism of the gun -- an internal lock. I'm sure such a system could be designed so as to be rendered inoperable if this lock is tampered with or removed.

[Perinquus]

Actually, there is a biometric system that small -- witness the HP IPAQ h5450. A PocketPC equipped with a fingerprint scanner not much larger than, well, your fingerprint. And what I was talking about is a lock on the firing mechanism of the gun -- an internal lock. I'm sure such a system could be designed so as to be rendered inoperable if this lock is tampered with or removed.

This technology is still not sufficiently reliable, and as I said, with a firearm that may be needed for defense in a life or death situation, anything less than complete reliability may be a deadly liability. There are other reasons that such a technology may be unwise.

Beretta conducted a study in 1999 and strongly advised against depending on "smart guns". For one thing, they may actually make firearms accidents more likely. For example, civilian owners of such guns, who would not currently do so, might believe that their weapon is now childproof and could leave their guns loaded and accessible to children, trusting the "smart gun" feature to prevent an accident. Concerns about this potentially risky situation might be assuaged if we knew that "smart gun" technology was reliable, but it is not. The Sandia National Laboratories study found that police officers rejected "smart gun" technology because it was unreliable. Similarly, Beretta has studied "smart gun" concepts for several years now and has found the designs currently under consideration to be potentially unsafe and unreliable.

Examples of "smart gun" technology include handguns which have fingerprint sensors on the trigger which are coded to one person’s trigger finger print, revolvers in which a magnetic ring worn on the hand of an authorized user de-activates an internal locking mechanism, a semi-automatic pistol which only fires if it is in close proximity to a radio-frequency generating transponder, a revolver which operates only in response to a pre-programmed pressure from the hand of an authorized user, and a handgun which is activated by voice recognition technology.

None of these systems is currently practical, nor does it look like they can be made so. The issue is not merely one of how durable and reliable the electronic components of such a device may be (though that is a serious concern all by itself), but also of serious, fundamental problems with each of these approaches.

A lock which depends on reading fingerprints, for example, would not work with a gloved hand, requires exact placement of the finger on the trigger (which might be missed in a life-threatening confrontation), and prevents use of the gun with either hand or by more than one authorized user.

Voice recognition technology is unreliable, especially if the owner of a gun is being attacked and must try to match the normal speaking voice with which their firearm is familiar. Someone being stalked or a homeowner with an intruder present may also not want to reveal their location to a potential attacker by having to speak to their gun to get it to function.

Magnetic devices are internal to the weapon. If, after use, the lock does not return to its "locked" position, this failure of the device is not apparent, thus leaving the gun unlocked when the owner believes it is locked. The magnetic rings used for these devices erase credit cards, computer diskettes, and cassette tapes. One police department in Ohio experimented with the devices and found that police officers routinely left their rings at home because they did not like them. Most troubling is the fact that the magnetic lock is non-discriminating, meaning that any magnet can release it. This means that a child could unlock and use the firearm using a magnet from their kitchen refrigerator.

All devices that use batteries suffer from an additional problem. Most homeowners who have a gun for self-defense rarely fire that weapon. A handgun, for example, might be stored for years before it is needed to save someone’s life. If that gun depends upon batteries to activate the weapon, a serious question arises about the failure mode of the device. If the batteries fail and the gun cannot be activated, the homeowner who depends upon the weapon to save his or her life, may find that the gun does not work. If, on the other hand, the failure mode of the batteries leaves the gun unlocked, a homeowner might be relying on the batteries to keep the gun locked and safe, only to discover that a child can now use the gun without impediment.

Internal mechanical locks, such as internal combination locks, require activation by the owner and, in that sense, are no different than existing externally applied locks. They suffer the disadvantage of being a part of the firearm, which means that the owner may not notice or may forget that the gun is unlocked and thus leave it accessible to children, believing it is safe.

Beretta concluded:

These concerns raise a further, serious point. No "smart gun", to our knowledge, has ever been subjected to real-life testing. It is unknown whether these devices will cause the gun to malfunction when it should not. It is unknown whether these devices will lock successfully every time. It is unknown whether these devices can withstand corrosion or exposure to the oils and solvents typically used to clean a firearm. We do know that oil will destroy electronics and we do know that these devices complicate the firearm in many significant ways.

and went on to express doubts about the true motivation of insistence on developing smart gun technology:

The fatal accident rate in the United States involving firearms is at its lowest level since 1903. This accident rate has declined almost 40 percent in the past 25 years alone and the decline in fatal firearm accidents has occurred in a century which has seen a four hundred percent increase in the number of firearms in circulation in the United States.

Notwithstanding this remarkable record of safety, gun control advocates had urged that locks -- such as trigger locks -- be provided for guns by firearm manufacturers (rather than through existing retail channels). When the firearms manufacturers agreed to do so, the same advocates declared that the very locks which they had proposed were suddenly insufficient and that "smart gun" technology was now required. We believe that these proposals are not motivated by safety (they do not call for locks on shotguns or rifles, for example, even though these weapons are as frequently involved in accidents as handguns), but by the desire to make private ownership of handguns more difficult. The merits of that objective would provide the subject for a separate discussion, but irrespective of its political purpose, the call for "smart gun" technology suffers from technical and conceptual errors that could cost lives.

The idea of a "smart gun" has appeal to the unwary and has been promoted by gun control advocates who have no technical understanding of firearms design nor, apparently, of the risks inherent in their proposals. Beretta trusts that politicians and voters who consider this issue carefully and objectively will agree that such devices should not be required in
handguns.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Very educational, Perinquus. You have me on the point of implementing the technology. But it would seem that the major source of all these obstacles is that a truly secure and reliable authentication system does not currently exist.

With the psychological problem of people assuming their "smart" gun is secure and thus letting their own security measures go out the window, this is addressed through weapons education. Weapons education will very likely never be introduced into schools -- the political pressure against it, I believe, would be simply mind-blowing. If you thought the outcry against sex-ed was bad, just try convincing educators to inform our children regarding what to do about a weapon.

My kids are trained in how to recognize and respond to an unsecured weapon. If they see an unsecured weapon, they check to see what kind of weapon it is as well as its condition (based on visual inspection only); they tell me where it is, and I call it in to the police. Anyone who walks up and attempts to claim the weapon can either wait for the police and explain his unsecured weapon or go home without the thing. This has happened. I think the fact that I was carrying at the time, myself (and that I walk like a cop, lol) is all that kept him from trying to take the weapon by force. Whoa... tangent. Point is, with the education I've provided my kids -- the fact that they understand that guns aren't cool, and guns aren't evil, guns are just guns -- the likelihood that they will ever accidentally shoot themselves or anyone else is greatly diminished.

[Alyeska]

Very educational, Perinquus. You have me on the point of implementing the technology. But it would seem that the major source of all these obstacles is that a truly secure and reliable authentication system does not currently exist.

With the psychological problem of people assuming their "smart" gun is secure and thus letting their own security measures go out the window, this is addressed through weapons education. Weapons education will very likely never be introduced into schools -- the political pressure against it, I believe, would be simply mind-blowing. If you thought the outcry against sex-ed was bad, just try convincing educators to inform our children regarding what to do about a weapon.

My kids are trained in how to recognize and respond to an unsecured weapon. If they see an unsecured weapon, they check to see what kind of weapon it is as well as its condition (based on visual inspection only); they tell me where it is, and I call it in to the police. Anyone who walks up and attempts to claim the weapon can either wait for the police and explain his unsecured weapon or go home without the thing. This has happened. I think the fact that I was carrying at the time, myself (and that I walk like a cop, lol) is all that kept him from trying to take the weapon by force. Whoa... tangent. Point is, with the education I've provided my kids -- the fact that they understand that guns aren't cool, and guns aren't evil, guns are just guns -- the likelihood that they will ever accidentally shoot themselves or anyone else is greatly diminished.

That right there is the single most important thing when it comes to guns. Proper education. Households in which the children and family have been educated about guns are much less likely to have accidents. Furthermore the children even if they don't like guns will know enough about them that they can avoid dangerous situations.

Ignorance about guns is bad. Proper education is good.