Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
GeekNights Monday - Tech News Roundup May 2014
Tonight on GeekNights, in light of the many tech news stories breaking recently, we discuss several issues. Google/Youtube is likely buying Twitch, a university accidentally re-imaged all of its computers, criminals are finding increasingly sophisticated uses for large drones, Europe is still obsessed with this ridiculous "right to be forgotten," the UK appears determined to veto any action on Network Neutrality in the EU, AT&T is buying DirecTV (reminding us why streaming tech/access is still so primitive), malware increasingly is targeting ad-clicks, gun advocates went crazy and threatened a company for introducing updated smartgun technology, Oklahoma botched an execution despite there being modern technology to do it properly (entirely aside from whether it should be done in the first place), and New York may be on the verge of treating Internet access as a right.
Come to ConnectiCon: it's actually pretty awesome. Post in our forum: it's extremely awesome. Read A Canticle for Leibowitz: we're hoping it's awesome (as part of the GeekNights Book Club)!
Download MP3Source Link
Comments
The only surprising part of this bio: in the year 2000, the world had a quiet Rym.
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.
2) Reliability. As long as the reliability of the gun is biased towards NOT firing as opposed to firing, that only increases safety. That's sort of the point. If you're going to have guns, having guns that fire less often is just better. You're not in the military or police. Having your gun not fire when you're on the shooting range due to the electronics is an insignificantly small price to pay for how many lives will be saved for guns that don't fire when pointed at people.
3) Obviously forcing all guns to be retrofitted is impossible craziness of an unenforceable law. But as for freedom of choice, there's no such right. You can't sell unpasteurized dairy products. They are lethally dangerous. Freedom of choice to hurt yourself by drinking raw milk? No, we don't allow you to choose to drink poison milk. By the same principle we can force new guns sold to have added safety mechanisms.
4) Your measurement is a bad idea. Police departments are notably conservative and slow to adapt to new technologies. My technological advancements are perfectly viable and don't become adopted for many years after they are ready because people are resistant to change. Government usually only serves to slow technological progress. If even in one instance the government legislates that newer and superior technologies be used mandatorily, that is a good thing. It's even more good in this case because it is a life saving technology.
2) People carry guns for personal protection. Having their gun not fire when they're using it to defend themselves decreases safety. If you don't think that people should have a right to bear arms, amend the constitution.
3) If someone wants to drink raw milk, I say let them. Same thing with alcohol, marijuana, large sodas, etc. As long as they're not hurting someone else, what's the problem?
4) Of all the people who should be using smart guns, police officers are at the top of the list. Police officers are some of the few people who have to actually go into dangerous situations instead of retreating like most sensible people would, and having their gun taken from them and used against them is a real risk. Increasing officer safety is a top priority for police departments, and smart gun technology that actually works and is reliable should be actively pursued by them.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/johnson_city_officer_killed_with_his_own_weapon.html
And Scott *is* the admin. I'm asking *him* to take the discussion there too.
I see there's a "Gun Control" thread over in Flamewars. I guess I'll head over there.
I am against violence. I think the death penalty is abhorrent (since we also discussed that on the show). Lethal weapons are the worst means of self-defense one could put together in modern, civilized society. Even if we skip the abhorrent nature of capital punishment, we STILL use antiquated and awful technology to practice our barbaric art, while objectively superior technology exists to do the same.
If the primary purpose of a lethal weapon is self-defense against X, then we need to look at this like technologists.
How likely is X? How likely is a separate adverse outcome Y that can only occur if lethal technology is employed in the first place?
Is carrying a lethal weapon more or less safe statistically than not carrying one? Is fixing a bug in a possibly destabilizing manner more or less of a risk than not fixing it?
What about options other than lethal technology? Tasers, tear gasses, and even more effective future-tech weapons.
If we develop a taser-like device that is an extremely low chance of causing death or permanent injury, that is effective in the majority of self-defense situations, then is there ANY justification to allowing the employment of lethal weapons for the same self-defense purposes?
Luke's argument would be difficult to make 200+ years ago. There were few ways to defend oneself from violence that were not themselves likely to be lethal. Advancing technology lets us have this debate! We have options now! As time goes on, we'll have more!
If these smart guns are developed to the point that the technology has a failure-to-fire rate equal to or lower than non-enabled weapons, then there is zero justification for not embracing said technology.
It's moot for self-defense, however. Technology is creating an increasing bounty of less-lethal and non-lethal weapons, while simultaneously stranger-instigated violence has reached shockingly low rates in the civilized world. If non-lethal options are objectively superior, then there is no justification for lethal options in the same use cases.
None of the "less-lethal" options you named are objectively superior to firearms.
Let's be more specific when it comes to self-defense. The goal of self-defense is to stop the threat. When the attacker is no longer willing or able to be a threat, then you can be considered to have successfully defended yourself. If the attacker runs away, is rendered unconscious or immobile, or is killed, then the thread has been stopped.
Tasers and tear gas/pepper spray are flawed technologies, at best. Tasers can be defeated by thick clothing as the electrodes cannot penetrate deep enough into the skin to be effective. They have a range limited by the length of the wires. Also, tasers are simply ineffective against some people - I have seen a video of a man hit in the torso by a taser who remained standing.
Pepper spray is similarly ineffective against some people and has a severely limited range. It is also difficult to aim, and can splash back on the user, making effective escape after using pepper spray difficult. This is especially true indoors, where using pepper spray means basically everyone in the room is getting hit.
Beanbags currently only exist for shotguns. I'm not about to lug around a Remington 870 for self-defense, so that option is out.
No currently available less-lethal self-defense technology is as effective as a firearm. If that changes (for instance, if the Night-Night gun from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. became a reality), then perhaps it would be feasible to employ less-lethal options for self defense.
Also, as a side note, my state currently bans possession and use of Tasers by the general public, so it is not an option for me even if I wanted.
Let's give you your perfect scenario Mr. self defense with guns. Someone breaks into your house. They have a knife and want to kill you. You keep your gun near your bed. You happen to be awake. You can safely, and perhaps legally, shoot them, and you murder them. You think that's perfectly fine, right?
No, fuck you. You are an evil murdering fuck and a coward. Think about people in the world who are great people. Not just good people, great people. Courageous people. Someone like Mr. Rogers or Ghandi. A really good person. The person you should aspire to be. What would they do in that situation? Or how about the fictional Jesus Christ beloved by so many of those who defend their gun ownership. What would he do in that situation? You can bet your ass none of them would even consider using violence to solve any problem, even that one.
The only legitimate and moral uses of guns are the sport of marksmanship and some hunting of animals. Get your self defense shit out of my face.
Scott, I have an improvement to your head crushing rock death machine. To make it just as deadly and humane but even more horrific, make the "hammer" and "anvil" out of completely transparent material like acrylic. Then position the audience and pro-death-sentence people underneath the anvil, looking up at it.
Start the video 90 seconds in:
I want to be clear that I am not saying it is okay to murder the attacker. If, at the sight of my gun, the attacker turns tail and runs, I am not justified in shooting them. If the attacker does not run away, I shoot them, and they fall to the ground, I am not justified in walking up to them and shooting them in the head to "finish the job". Once the threat is stopped, there is no more need to use force. I believe at that point I have an obligation to call for an ambulance for the attacker to give them the best chance of survival. As it turns out, the majority of people who are shot with a handgun survive (Lethality of Firearm-Related Injuries in the United States Population Beaman, et al, Annals of Emergency Medicine 35:3 March 2000).
If that makes me "less" moral than Mr. Rogers or Gandhi, then so be it. I would rather be alive and less than a paragon of morality.
It is also worthwhile to distinguish between using lethal force in self defense, and the death penalty. With the death penalty, you are taking someone who is incarcerated, and therefore not a threat to anyone, and killing them. It is on an entirely different level, morally speaking. There are also the myriad issues with false convictions leading to innocent people being executed. For that reason alone, I am opposed to the death penalty.
New Jersey apparently has legislation that says three years after this becomes commercially available in NJ(Or maybe it was the US? I don't recall) all guns in the state(with a bunch of qualifications) will be required to have them after three years, except for police weapons. And you can kill two birds with one stone on that front, by not living in New Jersey - because then you're both not subject to that law, and you don't live in New Jersey, so winners all around.
And worst of all, that Watch thing is ugly as sin. Honestly, if the objections were based on that, I could absolutely understand.
Also I vote Gallagher's Slege-o-matic for #1 home and self defense tool. Not many people gonna fuck with the dude carrying a big fuck off hammer around. I mean, look at Thor, that dude does alright.
Imagine a drone rushing a to-be-transplanted heart from the facility where it was harvested to the closest immediate-need transplantation facility.
http://forum.frontrowcrew.com/discussion/9278/the-gun-control-thread#latest
Unfortunately, this is the Internet, so I guess you will go on thinking that I'm an evil person.