Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.

Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.

I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".

Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.

Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate, 1333 guns is a lot of guns, even if it is a vacuum number. In the hands of any trained group of people, say ISIS, that number of unaccounted guns is huge, especially since they weren't reported.

Is there any actual good argument against requiring gun manufacturers to report weapons that are lost in transit?

Obama would devote more federal funds to treating mental illness — a move that could require congressional approval

Something that I have long advocated for as suicides make up the majority of deaths involving firearms.

and require that firearms lost in transit between a manufacturer and seller be reported to federal authorities.

No objection here provided that there are not onerous time frames for the reporting

Under the president’s proposal, the FBI will hire more than 230 examiners and other personnel to help process new background checks, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new investigation center to keep track of illegal gun trafficking online and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.

I would like to hear more information on this, especially the conviction rates using this system as it sounds very much like Maryland's gun database experiment that was wrapped up after 15 years of failure and millions of dollars wasted, yet never solved a single case
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

One of the main provisions is new federal guidance requiring some occasional gun sellers to get licenses from the ATF and conduct background checks on potential buyers. Rather than set a single threshold for what triggers this licensing requirement, it will be based on a mix of business activities such as whether the seller processes credit cards, rents tables at gun shows and has formal business cards.

I'm waiting more details on this, sounds like rather than set a threshold of X number of guns sold it is clarifying the existing criteria

Other aspects of the president’s plan aim to bolster the FBI’s background checks system, including a push by the U.S. Digital Service to modernize its processing operations and a proposal to add 200 new ATF agents and investigators to bolster enforcement.

Any chance of them adding more agents to approving Form 4s?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?

Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent.

Other associated problems are the battery life, integrating the electronic components in the firearm, and ensuring that they are robust enough to withstand the force generated when the firearm is used.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.

Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.

I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".

Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.

Playing a bit of Devil's Advocate, 1333 guns is a lot of guns, even if it is a vacuum number. In the hands of any trained group of people, say ISIS, that number of unaccounted guns is huge, especially since they weren't reported.

There are tens of millions of gun owners in the US and we collectively own hundreds of millions of guns. There are literally hundreds of guns present every time my club hosts a 3Gun competition. The 1330 is insignificant.

Gun shops and manufacturers really ought to Obama a fruit basket to once again, being the best advertiser for the industry.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.

Just to keep things accurate, 1333 was not the number of guns that went missing. It was the number of guns recovered during criminal investigations that had been missing but not reported. Not every unreported missing gun is going to be used in a crime so we can assume that the number of guns that go missing and unreported must be a lot greater.
The importance of the 1333 figure is the number of criminal investigations attached to these weapons - that's potentially 1333 crimes committed using missing and unreported weapons (and that's only the ones that were recovered).

The figure you should be comparing it to is not the number of total guns sold, but the number of criminal investigations involving firearms. That would give you a more realistic view of whether it is a big number or not.

 d-usa wrote:
Is there any actual good argument against requiring gun manufacturers to report weapons that are lost in transit?

You know my thoughts on gun control, and I can't think of any.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.

Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.

I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".

Not in a country of 300 million people. And it only does good if those guns would have been found before the crime occurred if only they had been reported stolen.

In order for this to make a different, there has to be a substantial number of guns which are 1) Stolen from a gun manufacturer. 2) Not reported as having been stolen. 3) Had their serial number run and nothing suspicious found. then 4) be used in a crime. All in that order.

Making the manufacturer report stolen guns does nothing if the order is 1) gun is stolen. 2) gun is reported. 3) gun is used in a crime.

Just because a gun is reported stolen doesn't mean much. It only does any good if the gun's serial number gets run by the police, which tends to only happen if the gun was used in a crime or is suspected of being used in a crime.

I doubt the number of unreported stolen guns which happen to get their clean numbers run by the police is at all significant.

So while there isn't necessarily anything wrong with requiring this to be done, it really won't do much in the grand scheme of things.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I see no reason it wouldn't be, though I am not sure how that will do anything to reduce crime. It would only do good if there was a substantial number of stolen guns getting checked by authorities, those guns not getting flagged because they were not reported stolen, and then later the gun is used in a crime.

Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.

I'd say that counts as a "substantial number".

out of ~300 million+ in circulation and a population of nearly equal magnitude? Over five years?

I mean, I don't find the reporting requirement to be all that onerous in theory, but the number of weapons we're talking here is also statistically negligible.

 d-usa wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Promote technology to prevent accidental discharge and unauthorized use of firearms... Are we going to see DNA scanners on our guns now? Sci Fi no more?

I think the basics of biometrics are there, they just need to get better.

Touching my thumb to the home button on my phone unlocks it now, and it wouldn't exactly be futuristic to imagine similar technology on a weapon. Now, I sometimes have to lift my finger a couple times to get it to register fight, which obviously wouldn't be acceptable on a firearm IMO, so it still needs some work.

The more fundamental issue I think is that we're talking about an electronic blocking mechanism to an otherwise mechanical device that could function without such. As such, there will always be a method of bypassing or removing it, simply by its inherent nature. A smart phone is an electronic device by which electronic means can be used to secure it, and so that works. But if you're relying on an electronic device to secure a mechanical device, the mechanical device can be made to function otherwise.

For the easiest example, one can look at paintball guns. I've got a lovely ~2004/2005 era Autococker with an electronic Raceframe grip on it, with programmable fire modes and operations, operating through an electronic solenoid. The marker will not function or fire if I do not turn the grip on and set it to a fire mode. However, if I simply swap out the grip (or replace the internals with a mechanical sear & trigger) and swap the electronic solenoid out for a mechanic 3-way valve, the gun will work perfectly fine (albeit without the nifty features of the mechanical grip) and that takes all of 10 minutes to do if I have the mechanical parts.

I mean, I guess it might stop a situation where someone takes a gun from you and turns it on you...as long as they aren't in your face within range of the RFID receiver or whatnot, but aside from that they seem like they've got a lot of misplaced trust put in them.

With respect to accidental discharges, if someone's pulling the trigger, either way, I'm not sure what a smartgun is supposed to do that good sense or a mechanical safety will not.

 Henry wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.

Just to keep things accurate, 1333 was not the number of guns that went missing. It was the number of guns recovered during criminal investigations that had been missing but not reported. Not every unreported missing gun is going to be used in a crime so we can assume that the number of guns that go missing and unreported must be a lot greater.
The importance of the 1333 figure is the number of criminal investigations attached to these weapons - that's potentially 1333 crimes committed using missing and unreported weapons.

Considering how many crimes happen perday IT is no wonder that some crimes do not go reported,

Or remain unsolved or are even investigated.

That number would be extremely different if we had all the numbers but we don't. I think because it is so low and how few are actually found are they actually found.

Each year they have 1,333 guns

So lets do some simple multiplication.......


Lets start with 10 years, over the last 10 years an average of 1,333 guns have been found in criminal cases.

So:
10 x 1,333 = 13,330

Yep that doesn't seem like much until realize it says EACH YEAR.

1,333 guns for one year doesn't seem bad till you start adding everything together. Hundreds of millions of guns? I am pretty sure there is a lot fewer guns owned by people in the united states. Probably millions not hundreds of millions owned by citizens.

But I do think it is interesting he has kept this till the end of his political career. Great Idea to do it now, so that the next president cannot stop it and would of to repeal the entire bill.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent. .

On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...



From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not in a country of 300 million people. And it only does good if those guns would have been found before the crime occurred if only they had been reported stolen.

This assumes all the guns were stolen and weren't "missing" because the gun dealers were selling the guns to people they shouldn't have been. By tightening up reporting of missing weapons you put the onus on the gun dealer to be able to account for where all their guns have gone, limiting underhanded dealings.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent. .

On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...



From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?

Could also stop people from murdering their family members.

 Henry wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.

Just to keep things accurate, 1333 was not the number of guns that went missing. It was the number of guns recovered during criminal investigations that had been missing but not reported. Not every unreported missing gun is going to be used in a crime so we can assume that the number of guns that go missing and unreported must be a lot greater.
The importance of the 1333 figure is the number of criminal investigations attached to these weapons - that's potentially 1333 crimes committed using missing and unreported weapons.

Virtually every gun is unrecorded. There is no federal registry of privately owned firearms and there are no comprehensive state registries either. There are a handful of states that require a limited form of registration such as registering the pistol you carry via your Concealed Carry permit or things like Connecticut's voluntary "assault weapon" registry. Other than filling out form 4473b at the time of sale their is no record kept and FFLs are only required to keep copies for a limited time. I highly doubt that the store where I bought my first gun years ago still has a copy of my 4473b.

The whole gun sales issue is pointless political pandering and fear mongering. The government doesn't know if I own guns let alone which type they are and their serial#s. There is no way for them to police how I sell them or who I choose to sell them to if I ever decide to sell them or if I've already sold them. Same thing with straw purchases. Once the purchaser leaves the store with a gun nobody tracks that gun. It disappears from any official record unless it turns up at a crime scene. Nobody knows if it gets resold or given away or how many times it changes hands if it ever does. That's why there are so few prosecutions of straw buyers unless somebody does something extremely stupid like buy dozens or hundreds of guns at once or tells the salesperson at the counter that the gun is being purchased on behalf of someone else (and that's not necessarily illegal since you're allowed to gift a gun to someone legally) there's no tip off that a straw purchase is occurring so there is I evidence to support a prosecution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Henry wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Maybe when viewed in a vacuum it's a big number compared to zero. In the context of the number of guns sold in the US annually it's a tiny fraction. Over 185,000 NICS checks were run on Black Friday alone this year. Given the number of guns bought the fact that 1300 went missing isn't surprising. We agree that a smaller number of missing guns would be better but let's keep things in proper perspective.

Just to keep things accurate, 1333 was not the number of guns that went missing. It was the number of guns recovered during criminal investigations that had been missing but not reported. Not every unreported missing gun is going to be used in a crime so we can assume that the number of guns that go missing and unreported must be a lot greater.
The importance of the 1333 figure is the number of criminal investigations attached to these weapons - that's potentially 1333 crimes committed using missing and unreported weapons.

Considering how many crimes happen perday IT is no wonder that some crimes do not go reported,

Or remain unsolved or are even investigated.

That number would be extremely different if we had all the numbers but we don't. I think because it is so low and how few are actually found are they actually found.

Each year they have 1,333 guns

So lets do some simple multiplication.......


Lets start with 10 years, over the last 10 years an average of 1,333 guns have been found in criminal cases.

So:
10 x 1,333 = 13,330

Yep that doesn't seem like much until realize it says EACH YEAR.

1,333 guns for one year doesn't seem bad till you start adding everything together. Hundreds of millions of guns? I am pretty sure there is a lot fewer guns owned by people in the united states. Probably millions not hundreds of millions owned by citizens.

But I do think it is interesting he has kept this till the end of his political career. Great Idea to do it now, so that the next president cannot stop it and would of to repeal the entire bill.

Per the federal government there were 310,000,000 guns privately owned back in 2009 and gun sales and concealed carry permits issued have increased since then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

 Frankenberry wrote:

My point isn't that accidents don't happen, it's that people who know how to respect and use firearms don't let this kind of stuff happen..

Except, as in the bit I quoted from you earlier, you made the claim that people who are trained in the use of firearms dont have those sorts of incidents.... One video was all it took to disprove that. Military and US Cops are, by pretty much any definition of the word, trained in the use of firearms. And as others have pointed out, even in the military they STILL happen.

Hell, I was on gate guard in Iraq one day when at the other gate to my base, a patrol was coming in, and a female soldier almost blew the head off of a SFC.

 Henry wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not in a country of 300 million people. And it only does good if those guns would have been found before the crime occurred if only they had been reported stolen.

This assumes all the guns were stolen and weren't "missing" because the gun dealers were selling the guns to people they shouldn't have been. By tightening up reporting of missing weapons you put the onus on the gun dealer to be able to account for where all their guns have gone, limiting underhanded dealings.

Its rather bold to claim that there is a large trend of dealers illegally selling guns, which is what you are doing here. It defies common sense and good business to do that. The risks of getting caught are immense, and there is plenty of legal demand, and the amount of guns we are talking about is pathetically small. There is no incentive for companies to do this.

I find it hard to believe that very many gun dealers would jump through all the hoops and go through all the trouble it takes to get an FFL, and then sell guns illegally, especially when the legal demand for guns has been going through the roof. And considering if you were going to sell guns illegally anyway, you don't need an FFL to do so.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I could be wrong. But I'm skeptical.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Hopefully not. The technology is sensitive and can take some time to register. Now couple that with a high pressure situation, such as defensive gun use and the associated adrenaline dump, and you may all too easily end up with an improvised melee weapon rather than a ballistic deterrent. .

On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...



From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?

This is something I found in a cursery search. Consider the source, though.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

 insaniak wrote:
On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...

Or people could obey the 4 Rules - especially the be sure of your target, and do not point the muzzle at anything you are not willing to destroy

 insaniak wrote:
From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?

Lowest estimates give a figure of 55,000 - 88,000 defensive gun uses a year. But many of these studies rely on reported instances to law enforcement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Could also stop people from murdering their family members.

Because if the biometric feature of their firearm delays them momentarily when they have the element of surprise and little time pressure they will completely abandon their murderous plans or not use another implement...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Each year they have 1,333 guns

So lets do some simple multiplication.......


Lets start with 10 years, over the last 10 years an average of 1,333 guns have been found in criminal cases.

So:
10 x 1,333 = 13,330

Yep that doesn't seem like much until realize it says EACH YEAR.

1,333 guns for one year doesn't seem bad till you start adding everything together. Hundreds of millions of guns? I am pretty sure there is a lot fewer guns owned by people in the united states. Probably millions not hundreds of millions owned by citizens.

But I do think it is interesting he has kept this till the end of his political career. Great Idea to do it now, so that the next president cannot stop it and would of to repeal the entire bill.

First of all, why 10 years? What lead you to select that number?

As you like math; in 2009 there were 310,000,000 guns in private ownership in the US. That number has grown significantly since then but for these purposes we'll use that number. So out of 310,000,000 firearms legally held by private citizens 1,333 are diverted to the black market. That is 0.00043% of all firearms. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say that firearm ownership remains constant for 10 years, as does the number of firearms making their way to the black market from this source. Well, over ten years 13,330 out of 310,000,000 is 0.0043%.

The number is so statistically insignificant that you may easily round it down to 0

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...

Or people could obey the 4 Rules - especially the be sure of your target, and do not point the muzzle at anything you are not willing to destroy

 insaniak wrote:
From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?

Lowest estimates give a figure of 55,000 - 88,000 defensive gun uses a year. But many of these studies rely on reported instances to law enforcement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Could also stop people from murdering their family members.

Because if the biometric feature of their firearm delays them momentarily when they have the element of surprise and little time pressure they will completely abandon their murderous plans or not use another implement...

Hey it will mean that if they tried to use their gun, they can't shoot up all their family members and could actually stop the person from shooting. Or mass shootings.

It would stop alot of things. I knew someone would bring that up. Yeah but its alot harder to kill someone without a gun. The ease of use would be harder. People will find a way to kill someone, but preventing someone from using a gun in a mass shooting is a win win.

what about a "smart" gun, operating *optimally* (as in, not delaying the ability of the weapon to fire because of its inefficient operation), would stop something like that?

Round it down to zero but as I said before, comparing that number with the number of guns in circulation is meaningless. It only has meaning compared with the number of total guns involved with criminal investigations. Then you'd be able to tell if it was a significant number or not (I have no idea or inkling either way).

As for whether anybody is illegally selling guns I also have no idea. My response was an attempt to show that the original wording of "missing" could have multiple causes, whereas Grey Templar had surreptitiously changed the wording from "missing" to "stolen".

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
On the other hand, that might result in fewer accidental shootings where people mistake a family member for an intruder...

Or people could obey the 4 Rules - especially the be sure of your target, and do not point the muzzle at anything you are not willing to destroy

 insaniak wrote:
From curiosity, are there any figures showing how many crimes are actually successfully stopped by the victim pulling out a firearm?

Lowest estimates give a figure of 55,000 - 88,000 defensive gun uses a year. But many of these studies rely on reported instances to law enforcement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Could also stop people from murdering their family members.

Because if the biometric feature of their firearm delays them momentarily when they have the element of surprise and little time pressure they will completely abandon their murderous plans or not use another implement...

Hey it will mean that if they tried to use their gun, they can't shoot up all their family members and could actually stop the person from shooting. Or mass shootings.

It would stop alot of things. I knew someone would bring that up. Yeah but its alot harder to kill someone without a gun. The ease of use would be harder. People will find a way to kill someone, but preventing someone from using a gun in a mass shooting is a win win.

How does a biometric prevent someone from using their own gun?

 Vaktathi wrote:
what about a "smart" gun, operating *optimally* (as in, not delaying the ability of the weapon to fire because of its inefficient operation), would stop something like that?

I don't think it would do much for those kind of things. I think the main area where it would help is with someone accidentally picking up the gun and shooting it at home, not being able to fire when kids play with it, not functioning if someone disarms you and tries to use it against you, those kind of things. The technology isn't quite there yet, but I can see it being helpful in those areas.

How do those smart guns work? Is it a solenoid that inhibits the firing mechanism or something like that? And what do you want the default de-energised state to be, live or safe? If the battery runs out on a weapon that de-energises to safe then that's going to be bad news for the first cop that has to deal with that situation. If it de-energises to live then that doesn't help prevent little Timmy from blowing his sisters head off. Different de-energised states for different uses I'd guess.

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
what about a "smart" gun, operating *optimally* (as in, not delaying the ability of the weapon to fire because of its inefficient operation), would stop something like that?

I don't think it would do much for those kind of things. I think the main area where it would help is with someone accidentally picking up the gun and shooting it at home, not being able to fire when kids play with it, not functioning if someone disarms you and tries to use it against you, those kind of things. The technology isn't quite there yet, but I can see it being helpful in those areas.

If kids are playing with your guns that is evidence of a host of other problems that can't be fixed by a biometric lock. Technology shouldn't be used to circumvent knowledge of and adherence to the 4 Rules and proper storage and handling or to enable lazy incompetent parenting. There is no substitute for personal responsibility.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
what about a "smart" gun, operating *optimally* (as in, not delaying the ability of the weapon to fire because of its inefficient operation), would stop something like that?

I don't think it would do much for those kind of things. I think the main area where it would help is with someone accidentally picking up the gun and shooting it at home, not being able to fire when kids play with it, not functioning if someone disarms you and tries to use it against you, those kind of things. The technology isn't quite there yet, but I can see it being helpful in those areas.

If kids are playing with your guns that is evidence of a host of other problems that can't be fixed by a biometric lock. Technology shouldn't be used to circumvent knowledge of and adherence to the 4 Rules and proper storage and handling or to enable lazy incompetent parenting. There is no substitute for personal responsibility.

To play the devil's advocate, though, you might possibly eliminate a lot of variables in the way gun owners care for and secure their weapons. I would say a bit of study on cost and other factors be done before going all out on it, though. It might not yet be practical for the reasons already given by others in this thread.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Hey it will mean that if they tried to use their gun, they can't shoot up all their family members and could actually stop the person from shooting. Or mass shootings.

So in your family killing scenario the shooter won't have programmed their own gun to accept their biometric data?

 Asherian Command wrote:
It would stop alot of things. I knew someone would bring that up. Yeah but its alot harder to kill someone without a gun. The ease of use would be harder. People will find a way to kill someone, but preventing someone from using a gun in a mass shooting is a win win.

Except for the fact that most people who commit mass murder use a gun they own, or that a close family member owns - which means that their data is likely entered as another authorized user. So you have prevented nothing

There are a few cases where biometrics might have prevented a shooting. However, the expense associated with adding this feature to guns, plus all the existing guns that wouldn't have this, plus all the crimes that would be committed by someone using a gun that they are authorized to use, with all combine to make it ineffective.

The cost would also be an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Adding hundreds of dollars onto the cost of each gun would effectively mean only rich people could exercise their 2nd amendment rights, same reason why mandating gun safes would also be a problem.

Under the president’s proposal, the FBI will hire more than 230 examiners and other personnel to help process new background checks, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new investigation center to keep track of illegal gun trafficking online and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.

May need Congress to do this as there is money involved and possibly oversight issues.

One of the main provisions is new federal guidance requiring some occasional gun sellers to get licenses from the ATF and conduct background checks on potential buyers. Rather than set a single threshold for what triggers this licensing requirement, it will be based on a mix of business activities such as whether the seller processes credit cards, rents tables at gun shows and has formal business cards.

This is iffy. From what I've been reading on the interwebs there is no set definition or "numbers" which trigger the licensing requirement. I don't see this surviving court challenges without better triggering requirements.

Other aspects of the president’s plan aim to bolster the FBI’s background checks system, including a push by the U.S. Digital Service to modernize its processing operations and a proposal to add 200 new ATF agents and investigators to bolster enforcement.

Really nothing noteworthy in this. Money for these 200 new agents/investigators may need Congress.

Obama will instruct federal agencies, which collectively represent the nation’s largest firearms purchaser to “explore potential ways” to promote technology that would prevent the accidental discharge or unauthorized use of a gun, according to White House officials.

This is little more than lip service to his base.

Another measure will require federally licensed gun dealers to report any lost and stolen guns to the National Crime Information Center. Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller that claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.

Doesn't sound onerous on the surface. Would need to see if there is a devil hiding in the details. Also, how would this work with the licensing trigger? Could this be used "after the fact" to entrap a non-FFL sale?

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), by contrast, issued a statement Monday saying that even without knowing the plan’s details, “the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will. . . . This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it.”...

Trouser snake measuring contest begins in 3... 2... 1...

---------------------------------------------------------------

The only meaningful element I see is the requirement of reporting lost firearms requirement. The rest is show/grandstanding.