Bullet "fingerprinting" at work!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>And in most failures, you don't die as a result.

Neither would a failure of the weapons electronics we are discussing here. A failure of an automotive controller means the car stops; a failure of a gun enabling system means the gun doesn't fire.

Guns have to be more reliable than cars. This is a fact, not open to [intelligent] dispute.

As you note, most car failures lead to the car not starting, or rolling to a stop. A cop finding his gun doesn't fire may get him killed - this is why every example of legislation that would mandate 'smartass' guns on the citizens specifically exempts LEOs.

I myself will not accept such guns until cops no longer feel a need to be exempted.

[quade 4]

Quote

lol you might want to reread what you wrote there.

I'm guessing he's talking about the odds of it going inop during a life threatening emergency.

Question; of the number of rounds you've ever fired, how many of them are rounds that you had to fire or your life would have ended?

Obviously this is different for law enforcement and military vs others.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 917]

How in the world do all those electronic gadget thingeys ever survive on the space shuttle???



Bill is right guys..and you most likely already know that. We have loads of weapons, vehicles, etc. in some very harsh environments with a lot of electronics on them that survive repeated use.
I'm using one now for that matter.

[billvon 3,173]

>Guns have to be more reliable than cars. This is a fact, not open to
>[intelligent] dispute.

An interesting tactic! I will reply by saying that anyone who thinks that gun reliability impacts people more heavily than vehicular reliability is someone who has either never commuted to work, or who has very poor judgment concerning their own personal safety.

>As you note, most car failures lead to the car not starting, or rolling to a
>stop. A cop finding his gun doesn't fire may get him killed . . .

Ah, I see. Well, in that case, a woman finding that her car will not start while trying to flee a rapist might just find herself raped and potentially murdered.

>I myself will not accept such guns until cops no longer feel a need
>to be exempted.

That's fine. Such improvements are best tested in small markets first to prove them out before police start using them. That's happened with pretty much every other technological innovation, which is why they're sometimes a little behind the times.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

A "perfect system" can't be designed. That, however, doesn't mean you can't continue to work towards that goal.

Ah yes, the typical gun-control attitude. Always keep piling more laws on top of other laws that don't work, in the vain hope that sometime in the future, just maybe, they'll actually be effective. And in the meantime, if we've infringed upon honest gun owners with gun registration, gun owner registration and bullet registration, costing billions of dollars, so be it.

And then when everybody and everything is registered, and crime continues to happen anyway - what then?

If you took this same attitude with skydiving to eliminate accidents, we'd all be jumping giant student manta canopies, with a minimum opening altitude of 7,000 feet, with AAD's on both main and reserve, and anyone doing hook turn landings would be arrested. Yeah, that'd be a lot of fun.

[billvon 3,173]

>If you took this same attitude with skydiving to eliminate accidents,
> we'd all be jumping giant student manta canopies . . .

No, we'd all be jumping with AAD's, which are complex electronic devices that are required to work in an extreme environment and which, if they malfunction, can kill you. Why, they might even record your last skydive so as to remove your privacy as well as your safety! I certainly hope you have the courage of your convictions, and try to talk everyone you know (especially the more gullible newer jumpers and students) out of using this failure-prone, unproven, deadly and intrusive technology. With more people like you, we can head off a future of seeing every skydiving student jumping with a combination bomb and camera on their backs!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Guns have to be more reliable than cars. This is a fact, not open to
>[intelligent] dispute.

An interesting tactic! I will reply by saying that anyone who thinks that gun reliability impacts people more heavily than vehicular reliability is someone who has either never commuted to work, or who has very poor judgment concerning their own personal safety.

It's not about the impact. It's about the risk to life when it happens. I've experienced numerous vehicle failures in nearly 300k in driving mileage, with the BMW motorcycles (the only one where weight considerations exist) leading the way. None of them put me in great risk, even when failing on the freeway. That's why we can accept such poor reliability. We pull off to the shoulder, get it towed, and then fixed. Not an option in a situation calling for a trigger pull.

BTW, mandating everyone (but cops) buy guns using such technology isn't really a small scale test. Let those who are fearful of a bad discharge buy them, and a few decades later we'll think about it.

[billvon 3,173]

>It's about the risk to life when it happens. I've experienced numerous
>vehicle failures in nearly 300k in driving mileage, with the BMW
>motorcycles (the only one where weight considerations exist) leading the
>way. None of them put me in great risk . . .

In 2005, there were 45,000 people killed in car accidents here in the US. Of those, approximately 5%, or 2250, were due to mechanical failures.

Have any stats on how many people were killed when they could not fire their weapon due to a mechanical failure? I have a feeling it's a lot less than 2000.

> None of them put me in great risk . . .

Think a total failure of your steering system at 70mph would put you at risk? If, in the next year, you had to have one of your guns jam at a random time (while you were using the weapon, of course) or have a total steering system failure at a random time while driving - which one would you prefer?

>BTW, mandating everyone (but cops) buy guns using such technology
> isn't really a small scale test.

I agree. A small scale test would involve everyone in a given security service using the technology for a few years. The next step would probably be a test in an area like DC.

[sfc 1]

Quote

I think that guns are protected under the 2nd and DNA is protected under the 4th. I think both are voided when the person has committed a crime.

Guns don't have right under the 2nd, gun owners do.
I think it would be wrong to require you to submit your guns for fingerprinting but ok for states or the fed to require (new) guns to be fingerprinted prior to being sold.
If you don't commit any crimes with your guns then you have nothing to worry about.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Question; of the number of rounds you've ever fired, how many of them are rounds that you had to fire or your life would have ended?

This is relevant, how?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>If you took this same attitude with skydiving to eliminate accidents,
> we'd all be jumping giant student manta canopies . . .

No, we'd all be jumping with AAD's, which are complex electronic devices that are required to work in an extreme environment and which, if they malfunction, can kill you.

Taking the 'smart gun' example to skydiving, you would be relying on the AAD to open your parachute every time.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

lol you might want to reread what you wrote there.

I'm guessing he's talking about the odds of it going inop during a life threatening emergency.

Question; of the number of rounds you've ever fired, how many of them are rounds that you had to fire or your life would have ended?

Obviously this is different for law enforcement and military vs others.

I knew exactly what he meant. The fact you felt like his statement needed explaining only confirms he needed to read it again.

When deciding on which firearm you are going to purchase for self/home defense, isn't the chances a particular firearm will render you defenseless when you need it the most one of the top factors on whether or not you will purchase the piece? Every cop I know carries a backup and that backup is a revolver. Food for thought.

Oh and I have never had to fire my weapon in defense of myself or someone else. Thank goodness.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[normiss 917]

It always amazes me how easily some people are willing to give up rights that others have died to protect.
Disappointed really.


Personally, I require a warrant for any searches of my person and property. Whether or not I have anything to hide is not the issue.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Guns don't have right under the 2nd, gun owners do.
I think it would be wrong to require you to submit your guns for fingerprinting but ok for states or the fed to require (new) guns to be fingerprinted prior to being sold

And I did not disagree. But, I do think I have the right not to have that data in some govt database. So yes, you could fingerprint guns, but that data is not attached to me.

That way if I was a suspect you could test my gun, but you are not allowed to have a database.

Quote

If you don't commit any crimes with your guns then you have nothing to worry about.

Using that same logic I assume you would be fine with giving the Govt a DNA sample as well then? After all, if you don't commit any crimes you would have nothing to worry about right?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

Guns don't have right under the 2nd, gun owners do.
I think it would be wrong to require you to submit your guns for fingerprinting but ok for states or the fed to require (new) guns to be fingerprinted prior to being sold

And I did not disagree. But, I do think I have the right not to have that data in some govt database. So yes, you could fingerprint guns, but that data is not attached to me.

That way if I was a suspect you could test my gun, but you are not allowed to have a database.

Quote

If you don't commit any crimes with your guns then you have nothing to worry about.

Using that same logic I assume you would be fine with giving the Govt a DNA sample as well then? After all, if you don't commit any crimes you would have nothing to worry about right?

I would object to having my DNA collected just for the hell of it, but if there was a legitimate reason, like I'd been arrested or was in the military then I'd have no issue with them having it on record, I don't have anything to fear from it and it might help identify my corpse in the case of a accident, which would be good for my relatives.
Fingerprinting goes with the gun not the owner, it would be wrong to insist you retroactively fingerprinted your weapons. However with registration and fingerprinting a lot more can be done to track down the source of illegal weapons. It is relatively easy for criminals to get guns, increasing traceability will help discover and prosecute the people who put the guns into criminal hands so I support gun fingerprinting on new weapons.
I also support the 2nd and your and my right to bear arms.

[billvon 3,173]

>Taking the 'smart gun' example to skydiving, you would be relying on the
>AAD to open your parachute every time.

Nope. We'd be relying on it NOT activating every single time (which we do.) The most important job an AAD has is not activating at the wrong time.

Likewise, a weapon with this sort of system would, 99.9% of the time, NOT be inhibiting firing. Like an AAD, its most important function would be to not interfere most of the time.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It always amazes me how easily some people are willing to give up rights that others have died to protect.
Disappointed really.

Who exactly has dies to protect your right to own guns?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Taking the 'smart gun' example to skydiving, you would be relying on the
>AAD to open your parachute every time.

Nope. We'd be relying on it NOT activating every single time (which we do.) The most important job an AAD has is not activating at the wrong time.

Likewise, a weapon with this sort of system would, 99.9% of the time, NOT be inhibiting firing. Like an AAD, its most important function would be to not interfere most of the time.

No - the smart gun concept requires the system be operational to fire, whether by fingerprint recognition, some sort of RFID ring/bracelet, what have you. No recognition, no fire - the trigger or firing pin is locked into place.

Perhaps a more accurate description for me to have used would have been the AAD unlocking the BOC so you could throw the pilot chute.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,173]

>Perhaps a more accurate description for me to have used would have been the
>AAD unlocking the BOC so you could throw the pilot chute.

Or perhaps like an SOS system, where one action _must_ precede another (i.e. cutaway before reserve deployment) and if the action is prevented (by riser twists, for example) the other will not operate.

[champu 1]

Quote

How in the world do all those electronic gadget thingeys ever survive on the space shuttle???

It still makes me cringe every time I have to watch something I help design be subjected to random vibe and pyro-shock testing to ensure it will survive launch. That said, every application has its environmental design challenges, not just space. We, however, have the advantage of a slightly larger budget than firearm manufacturers.

Quote

If you don't then you have nothing to worry about.

You have to appreciate that this snowclone is so unreassuring that its usage has dwindled to near exclusively sarcastic contexts. To see it used literally is sad in a, "what rock have you been under?" kinda way.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In 2005, there were 45,000 people killed in car accidents here in the US. Of those, approximately 5%, or 2250, were due to mechanical failures.

Have any stats on how many people were killed when they could not fire their weapon due to a mechanical failure? I have a feeling it's a lot less than 2000.

Of course not. All guns are currently mechanical, without smartass technology. I like the status quo, I'm worried about what it would become. If budget or size is not a consideration, it's not so difficult to make more reliable, but citizens do not have unlimited funds or muscles like Arnold.

[billvon 3,173]

>Of course not. All guns are currently mechanical, without smartass
>technology. I like the status quo, I'm worried about what it would
>become. If budget or size is not a consideration, it's not so difficult to
>make more reliable, but citizens do not have unlimited funds . . .

I heard all the same arguments against AAD's. People refused to jump with people who had AAD's, and felt they were unreliable, unneeded, indicative of incompetence etc.

But progress brought us reliable AAD's, and nowadays someone who refused to jump with people who used AAD's jumps by himself.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

It always amazes me how easily some people are willing to give up rights that others have died to protect.
Disappointed really.

Who exactly has dies to protect your right to own guns?

It started with these men, in Lexington, 1775:

ROBERT MUNROE
JONAS PARKER
SAMUEL HADLEY
JOHN BROWN
ISAAC MUZZEY
CALEB HARRINGTON.
JONATHAN HARRINGTON
JEDEDIAH MUNROE
JOHN RAYMOND
NATHANIEL WYMAN

"Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, and disperse!"

"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here."

Every serviceman swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment. Even Barack Obama had to swear this oath.

[Ron 10]

Quote

No, we'd all be jumping with AAD's, which are complex electronic devices that are required to work in an extreme environment and which, if they malfunction, can kill you. Why, they might even record your last skydive so as to remove your privacy as well as your safety! I certainly hope you have the courage of your convictions, and try to talk everyone you know (especially the more gullible newer jumpers and students) out of using this failure-prone, unproven, deadly and intrusive technology. With more people like you, we can head off a future of seeing every skydiving student jumping with a combination bomb and camera on their backs!

Then I guess you are OK with manditory ADD usage?

Quote

Have any stats on how many people were killed when they could not fire their weapon due to a mechanical failure? I have a feeling it's a lot less than 2000.

CURRENTLY a lot less. Add in a bunch of un-needed electric gizmos and that number could increase.

When the electric add ons are safe enough that the police use them, then they are safe enough for everyone. Not the other way around. Unless you take the stand that a citizens life is worth less than a cops.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Of course not. All guns are currently mechanical, without smartass
>technology. I like the status quo, I'm worried about what it would
>become. If budget or size is not a consideration, it's not so difficult to
>make more reliable, but citizens do not have unlimited funds . . .

I heard all the same arguments against AAD's. People refused to jump with people who had AAD's, and felt they were unreliable, unneeded, indicative of incompetence etc.

But progress brought us reliable AAD's, and nowadays someone who refused to jump with people who used AAD's jumps by himself.

For the most part, you still have the option to jump without one in the US. Even without it being specified in the Constitution.

And if you never lost altitude awareness or the rare loss of consciousness, the AAD would never come into effect. It is only called upon after several processes have failed. It's But the smartass technology always has to work.