Well that's fucking stupid. Hey, you don't want a smart gun? Don't buy a smart gun, dumbass, don't threaten to kill the people making the smart guns. I fucking hate idiots that carry on like this. I'm all for responsible gun ownership, but there's zero chance you're a responsible gun owner if you're mad enough to threaten someone's life over an optional saftey feature.
"Hey, we're all about firearm saftey and using guns safely" "Great, here's an optional device that has the potential to make your hobby safer!" "FUCK YOU IMMA KILL YOU FOR SUGGESTING IT"
I would actually own a smart gun I think. That pretty much gets over my fear of a weapon in my house being used by someone without responsibility.
I can't say I'd buy one over others just for that feature, considering the way I've always stored guns in the past, but I can certainly see the appeal. I certainly wouldn't avoid a gun purchase just because it had one of those.
Is it a smart gun tied to your particular biometric properties or just a gun that needs an RF bracelet nearby to unlock?
The latter, but it's specifically a watch, rather than just a bracelet. It even has the option for you to enter a PIN to enable firing. It's a fuckin' goofy looking watch.
Copy/pasted from my post in the Tech Roundup thread:
I wanted to address the smart gun thing. While there is no excuse for the behavior of the people making death threats and whatnot, there are reasonable objections to mandating smart gun technology be included in all new firearms.
Firstly is cost. The Armatix iP1, which is the gun that started the whole kerfuffle, costs $1400, plus an additional $400 for the watch that unlocks it. An equivalent non-smart gun such as the Ruger SR-22 (same caliber) costs around $300-400. A cost increase of over $1000 over an equivalent non-smart gun is not tenable. Even if the technology advances to the point where it only costs $200, that represents a significant increase in price.
Second is reliability. Guns are by design simple mechanical devices. The more points of failure you introduce, the less likely it is to work when you need it. There is a reason the Glock pistol, which is composed of only 34 parts, is one of the most popular pistols in the country among both police and the general public. Adding an electronic device into the mix significantly increases the chance that the pistol will fail to fire. No matter how advanced the technology, more complexity will inevitably lead to lower reliability compared to an equivalent purely mechanical design.
Third is freedom of choice. I'm all for manufacturers developing new technologies and making them available on the market. If someone wants to buy a smart gun, then they can go ahead and buy one. However, forcing all gun manufacturers to include smart gun technology in their products is not fair to the consumer or the manufacturers. Some lawmakers have even floated the idea of requiring all existing guns to be retrofitted to include smart gun technology. I'm sure I don't have to explain why that is basically impossible.
One test for whether smart gun technology is truly viable is to see how many police departments are equipping their officers with smart guns. Until a significant percentage (say 25%) of police departments are using smart guns, I would argue they they are not truly viable.
So, what about less-lethal and non-lethal self-defense weapons?
Let's say studies show that tasers are objectively equivalent or better in terms of an ability to defend oneself against violence in a personal-carry capacity. If that were shown to be true, is there ANY justification to allowing people to carry a gun for the same purported purpose of personal self defense?
So, what about less-lethal and non-lethal self-defense weapons?
Let's say studies show that tasers are objectively equivalent or better in terms of an ability to defend oneself against violence in a personal-carry capacity. If that were shown to be true, is there ANY justification to allowing people to carry a gun for the same purported purpose of personal self defense?
If there were an objectively equivalent or better option for personal self-defense that was non-lethal, then absolutely it would make sense to use that instead of a firearm.
It would have to meet or exceed the effectiveness of a firearm in these criteria to be effectively equivalent or better: 1) Effective range (although anything that worked out to, say, 10 yards would probably be sufficient) 2) Rate of incapacitation (how many people hit with it are incapacitated) 3) Time to incapacitation (how long from hit to incapacitation) 4) Capacity (how many shots) 5) Ease of aiming/use 6) Concealability (size/weight) 7) Speed of deployment (time from holster to firing)
If a less-lethal option came along that met all those criteria, and was legal to own in my state, then I would absolutely use that instead.
How is long range a useful factor? How often is someone in the modern industrialized world subject to an opponent, armed with a long range weapon and wishing to do harm, at a distance?
How is long range a useful factor? How often is someone in the modern industrialized world subject to an opponent, armed with a long range weapon and wishing to do harm, at a distance?
I'll bet that almost never happens.
Read about the Tueller Drill. An attacker with a knife can close a distance of 21 feet and deliver a stab in about 1.5 seconds. It takes about that long (or longer) under normal conditions to draw and fire a pistol for a reasonably well-trained person. Under the stress of being charged by a guy with a knife, chances are it could be even longer.
So how often does someone intend another stranger harm at a distance with a knife?
I'll bet that almost never happens.
I don't feel like doing the research, and you probably don't either, so let's say for sake of argument that you are correct, and range is not a factor in the vast majority of self-defense situations.
What about the other criteria? I also should add an 8th one:
8) Usable by people of limited physical capability (e.g. the elderly or handicapped)
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Something about alcohol, prohibition, the ATF/TTB, and taxes. Maybe you're implying that since alcohol was prohibited by the 18th amendment, and subsequently that prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment, that somehow alcohol is a constitutional right that it is wrong to tax? I'm sure alcohol drinkers across the country would enthusiastically support such an argument.
We tax all kinds of things. Not sure why being a constitutional right makes something immune. The amendments were tangential, just that alcohol has been constitutionally condoned, and we still tax it.
Also, if one is so big on following The Constitution to the letter, I don't think it prohibits taxing the rights guaranteed within...
A tax on a right is an impediment to the exercise of that right. The question becomes, at what level does an "impediment" become unconstitutional?
Charging a permit fee for something like a protest seems reasonable if the purpose is to, say, cover costs incurred by the city or town (perhaps something like $500 to cover police presence, cleanup, etc.) It is an impediment, but not an unreasonable one, and it has a logical justification. However, if the permit fee is unreasonably high (say, $1,000,000), then it is clearly designed to abridge free speech and should not be allowed.
So, where do you draw the line? How much are peoples' rights worth? What about the people who can't afford their rights? Is it okay to charge a "blogging tax" of $1 per blog post? How about $50 per post? Should I have to pay a $500 "Fourth amendment tax" to keep the police out of my house without a warrant?
My point is this: if you're going to tax something, there needs to be a strong, logical reason to do so. This is doubly so for things that are specifically called out in the constitution as rights that "shall not be violated" or "shall not be infringed".
So even though there are legal means to own guns, there are still limits. You can't have nuclear missiles. You can't have a cruise missile. You can't have fully automatic assault rifles. The law draws a line. Average citizens can only bear arms below a certain power level.
With that in mind, what counts as arms? A halberd is arms. A cudgel is arms. A kitchen knife is arms. A rock is arms. A bottle of bleach from the grocery store can be arms. Just change the law to draw that line so far south. Ban all lethal arms, while still giving people the right to bear non-lethal arms. If you don't think that that's constitutional, then the argument follows that the ban on people having personal nuclear armaments is also unconstitutional.
Lots of arms have other useful purposes, the kitchen knife for example. But many arms are only good for murder and murder alone. You can practice marksmanship with a .22 pistol, or even an air pistol. What purpose is there for the Desert Eagle besides being badass and cliche simultaneously? Ban dat shit.
I think the line should be drawn at any man-portable non-area-effect weapon. Nukes, bombs, and chemical weapons - no. Rifles, pistols, and crew-served belt-fed machine guns - yes.
You make the argument that if one does not support a ban on all lethal arms, then it follows that one must not support banning any arms at all, even nukes. That's like saying if I do not support a ban on all speech, then I must not support banning any speech at all, even slanderous or threatening speech.
There can be reasonable limits on any right, but extreme care must be taken to ensure that those rights are preserved. That is why, when dealing with restrictions on a fundamental right, courts must use the most stringent standard of judicial review (strict scrutiny) when evaluating whether those restrictions are constitutional. A blanket ban on all lethal arms would not come even close to passing constitutional muster.
I say again - you want to ban all civilian firearm ownership? Repeal the second amendment.
There can be reasonable limits on any right, but extreme care must be taken to ensure that those rights are preserved.
One might say this is directly contradictory to your earlier statement re: taxation on constitutionally guaranteed rights. Care to reconcile the two points?
Frankly, I find the second amendment argument lose-lose in my book. Suppose the second amendment was repealed. Would everyone be ok with forfeiting all the guns? If so, you're only okay with it because the law says so, and not because it's right. Doesn't sit well with me. Are you not ok with forfeiting all the guns? Then your argument was intellectually dishonest in the first place.
Comments
"Hey, we're all about firearm saftey and using guns safely" "Great, here's an optional device that has the potential to make your hobby safer!" "FUCK YOU IMMA KILL YOU FOR SUGGESTING IT"
If it's not a Lawgiver it's not a "smart" gun.
Each individual round fired is tagged with the DNA code of the Judge to whom the weapon belongs, thus making identification of the shooter possible with the recovery of the slugs from a victim.
Brush my teeth.
Accidentally kill someone.
I wanted to address the smart gun thing. While there is no excuse for the behavior of the people making death threats and whatnot, there are reasonable objections to mandating smart gun technology be included in all new firearms.
Firstly is cost. The Armatix iP1, which is the gun that started the whole kerfuffle, costs $1400, plus an additional $400 for the watch that unlocks it. An equivalent non-smart gun such as the Ruger SR-22 (same caliber) costs around $300-400. A cost increase of over $1000 over an equivalent non-smart gun is not tenable. Even if the technology advances to the point where it only costs $200, that represents a significant increase in price.
Second is reliability. Guns are by design simple mechanical devices. The more points of failure you introduce, the less likely it is to work when you need it. There is a reason the Glock pistol, which is composed of only 34 parts, is one of the most popular pistols in the country among both police and the general public. Adding an electronic device into the mix significantly increases the chance that the pistol will fail to fire. No matter how advanced the technology, more complexity will inevitably lead to lower reliability compared to an equivalent purely mechanical design.
Third is freedom of choice. I'm all for manufacturers developing new technologies and making them available on the market. If someone wants to buy a smart gun, then they can go ahead and buy one. However, forcing all gun manufacturers to include smart gun technology in their products is not fair to the consumer or the manufacturers. Some lawmakers have even floated the idea of requiring all existing guns to be retrofitted to include smart gun technology. I'm sure I don't have to explain why that is basically impossible.
One test for whether smart gun technology is truly viable is to see how many police departments are equipping their officers with smart guns. Until a significant percentage (say 25%) of police departments are using smart guns, I would argue they they are not truly viable.
Let's say studies show that tasers are objectively equivalent or better in terms of an ability to defend oneself against violence in a personal-carry capacity. If that were shown to be true, is there ANY justification to allowing people to carry a gun for the same purported purpose of personal self defense?
It would have to meet or exceed the effectiveness of a firearm in these criteria to be effectively equivalent or better:
1) Effective range (although anything that worked out to, say, 10 yards would probably be sufficient)
2) Rate of incapacitation (how many people hit with it are incapacitated)
3) Time to incapacitation (how long from hit to incapacitation)
4) Capacity (how many shots)
5) Ease of aiming/use
6) Concealability (size/weight)
7) Speed of deployment (time from holster to firing)
If a less-lethal option came along that met all those criteria, and was legal to own in my state, then I would absolutely use that instead.
I'll bet that almost never happens.
Range is absolutely a useful factor.
I'll bet that almost never happens.
What about the other criteria? I also should add an 8th one:
8) Usable by people of limited physical capability (e.g. the elderly or handicapped)
Also, if one is so big on following The Constitution to the letter, I don't think it prohibits taxing the rights guaranteed within...
Charging a permit fee for something like a protest seems reasonable if the purpose is to, say, cover costs incurred by the city or town (perhaps something like $500 to cover police presence, cleanup, etc.) It is an impediment, but not an unreasonable one, and it has a logical justification. However, if the permit fee is unreasonably high (say, $1,000,000), then it is clearly designed to abridge free speech and should not be allowed.
So, where do you draw the line? How much are peoples' rights worth? What about the people who can't afford their rights? Is it okay to charge a "blogging tax" of $1 per blog post? How about $50 per post? Should I have to pay a $500 "Fourth amendment tax" to keep the police out of my house without a warrant?
My point is this: if you're going to tax something, there needs to be a strong, logical reason to do so. This is doubly so for things that are specifically called out in the constitution as rights that "shall not be violated" or "shall not be infringed".
With that in mind, what counts as arms? A halberd is arms. A cudgel is arms. A kitchen knife is arms. A rock is arms. A bottle of bleach from the grocery store can be arms. Just change the law to draw that line so far south. Ban all lethal arms, while still giving people the right to bear non-lethal arms. If you don't think that that's constitutional, then the argument follows that the ban on people having personal nuclear armaments is also unconstitutional.
Lots of arms have other useful purposes, the kitchen knife for example. But many arms are only good for murder and murder alone. You can practice marksmanship with a .22 pistol, or even an air pistol. What purpose is there for the Desert Eagle besides being badass and cliche simultaneously? Ban dat shit.
You make the argument that if one does not support a ban on all lethal arms, then it follows that one must not support banning any arms at all, even nukes. That's like saying if I do not support a ban on all speech, then I must not support banning any speech at all, even slanderous or threatening speech.
There can be reasonable limits on any right, but extreme care must be taken to ensure that those rights are preserved. That is why, when dealing with restrictions on a fundamental right, courts must use the most stringent standard of judicial review (strict scrutiny) when evaluating whether those restrictions are constitutional. A blanket ban on all lethal arms would not come even close to passing constitutional muster.
I say again - you want to ban all civilian firearm ownership? Repeal the second amendment.
Frankly, I find the second amendment argument lose-lose in my book. Suppose the second amendment was repealed. Would everyone be ok with forfeiting all the guns? If so, you're only okay with it because the law says so, and not because it's right. Doesn't sit well with me. Are you not ok with forfeiting all the guns? Then your argument was intellectually dishonest in the first place.