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.

The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.

Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....

 SOFDC wrote:

The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.

Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....

If DoJ and/or DoD buy, some company will make a fortune.

I'm curious about this, not from a perspective as to what he's doing, but as to the various reactions of the posters here.

Are you objecting to this proposal because;

a. He's bypassing congress
b. He's trying to impose additional regulations on Gun Ownership
c. The proposal actually does nothing because the laws already exist but they're not enforced
d. You think the next step is to ban guns completely
e. NIMBYism

Cheers

Andrew

 CptJake wrote:

 SOFDC wrote:

The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.

Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....

If DoJ and/or DoD buy, some company will make a fortune.

This. The government can't really 'waste' money on new toys. The government is one of the best customers anyone can hope to have, and most certainly the US Government buys a lot of guns

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm curious about this, not from a perspective as to what he's doing, but as to the various reactions of the posters here.

Are you objecting to this proposal because;

a. He's bypassing congress

In part yes. I am not a fan of Executive Orders, regardless of which POTUS issues them

 AndrewC wrote:
b. He's trying to impose additional regulations on Gun Ownership

None of which would have stopped any of the attacks he mentioned, and in fact has muddied the waters on who is required to perfer background checks

 AndrewC wrote:
c. The proposal actually does nothing because the laws already exist but they're not enforced

In part yes, many of the laws currently relating to firearms are not adequately enforced

 AndrewC wrote:
d. You think the next step is to ban guns completely

Do I think that his next step is banning guns completely? No. Do I trust someone to support the Second Amendment when he openly praised the Australian model of removing guns from citizens? No.

 AndrewC wrote:
e. NIMBYism

What does not in my back yard have to do with gun control?

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 SOFDC wrote:

The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.

Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....

If DoJ and/or DoD buy, some company will make a fortune.

This. The government can't really 'waste' money on new toys. The government is one of the best customers anyone can hope to have, and most certainly the US Government buys a lot of guns

Yup, all those highly responsible folks in the Secret Service need those guns to protect the guy in the White House who likes to lecture the general populace all about how guns are bad, mmkay.

 Alex C wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 SOFDC wrote:

The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns.

Alright I have to know: How many people who actually -own- firearms would willingly go and replace their daily carry (Or lets go a step further, buy at all) with a "Smart" gun? Put me down in the "No" category. You can dump all the government money into trying to develop the tech, but if there are no buyers....

If DoJ and/or DoD buy, some company will make a fortune.

This. The government can't really 'waste' money on new toys. The government is one of the best customers anyone can hope to have, and most certainly the US Government buys a lot of guns

Yup, all those highly responsible folks in the Secret Service need those guns to protect the guy in the White House who likes to lecture the general populace all about how guns are bad, mmkay.

And former presidents.

And presidential candidates.

And foreign embassies.

And foreign heads of state that come to visit.

And the banks and monetary systems of our nation.

But hey, let's pretend that the 4,000+ officers of the Secret Service only exist to guard Obama.

Never claimed they guard him exclusively.

The EOs are forcing a change upon you that is best illustrated by the earlier OT interlude from a Canadian poster. I'm not American, I currently live in a country with even more 'liberal' gun control laws than you. I don't see a problem with these new regulations, BUT I don't live there it's not my 'back yard' and I'm not so emotionally invested in the outcome.

Perhaps nimby was a poor choice to express that sentiment, my apologies.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
The EOs are forcing a change upon you that is best illustrated by the earlier OT interlude from a Canadian poster.

I'm not American, I currently live in a country with even more 'liberal' gun control laws than you. I don't see a problem with these new regulations, BUT I don't live there it's not my 'back yard' and I'm not so emotionally invested in the outcome.

Perhaps nimby was a poor choice to express that sentiment, my apologies.

Cheers

Andrew

More discussion on whether you approve of the right to bear arms is off topic so I am not going to encourage it. What I will say though is that I'm not American either, but I live here and I have little regard for laws that inconvenience the law abiding while doing nothing to solve the purported problem. The only good that I can see coming from these EOs is that more funding is going to mental health services (~60% of deaths by firearm are suicide) and that mental health issues will be better reported to the NICS which will strengthen protections against improper persons passing background checks.

Perhaps that's the tactics behind it? A variation of throwing enough mud in the hope that some sticks? The more onerous propositions get weeded out over the term, and the other less onorous, get through by default. For example the increased spending on mental health that congress may have objected to if it was presented in isolation?

Cheers

Andrew

I totaly agree with the mental health angle.

Relapse wrote:
I totaly agree with the mental health angle.

Most do, except for a select few, there aren't many people who are going to say "But mental health isn't an issue"

*Que donald trump*

I think mental health has always been an issue in the united states. Well apart from healthcare, but thats another beast entirely.

Mental Health needs to be changed up quite a bit, especially the approach most people have to it and how people regard people with depression etc etc.

Its a laundry list, and I find it far more pressing than the gunlaws as someone has mentioned most gun related deaths are caused by suicide.

Perhaps that's the tactics behind it? A variation of throwing enough mud in the hope that some sticks? The more onerous propositions get weeded out over the term, and the other less onorous, get through by default. For example the increased spending on mental health that congress may have objected to if it was presented in isolation?

Probably

But knowing our congress they wouldn't of come up with something like this, or anything to do with mental health or gun control. Which is always a two side debate for some reason.

But eh digressing.

I do think alot of the action does make alot of sense but some of it just waste of resources.

The whole Smartgun thing seems like it is just going to introduce unneeded complexity. It will be probably a week or two before someone finds an illicit way around whatever is put in place as a security feature, while creating a huge pitfall of extra reasons why your gun won't work when you need it to. Are we thinking a finger print reader? What if you drop your weapon at some point and there's mud, or it's raining, or you are being assaulted so you can't get a clear read? Or are we talking some kind of DNA scan in the grip? RFID bracelet?

It all just seems like introducing a large number of potential points of failure in the legitimate use of guns while criminals will simply disable or buy versions of guns without these features.

If limiting accidental discharges is the goal - don't chamber a round until you plan on firing it. Pretty much 100% effective and chambering a round is faster than a fingerprint scan.

You wouldn't even need to reprogram anything to get around this as a safety feature. Any sort of biometric safety will still have a physical method of preventing the gun from firing, all you need to do is take the gun apart and disable that.

 Bromsy wrote:
The whole Smartgun thing seems like it is just going to introduce unneeded complexity. It will be probably a week or two before someone finds an illicit way around whatever is put in place as a security feature, while creating a huge pitfall of extra reasons why your gun won't work when you need it to. Are we thinking a finger print reader? What if you drop your weapon at some point and there's mud, or it's raining, or you are being assaulted so you can't get a clear read? Or are we talking some kind of DNA scan in the grip? RFID bracelet?

It all just seems like introducing a large number of potential points of failure in the legitimate use of guns while criminals will simply disable or buy versions of guns without these features.

If limiting accidental discharges is the goal - don't chamber a round until you plan on firing it. Pretty much 100% effective and chambering a round is faster than a fingerprint scan.

That's why everyone involved professionally in the defensive gun use training world speaks negatively of "smart" guns. There's just way too much nonsense associated with it for every little payoff. Fingerprint scanners or something biometic in the grip? Better not have blood or mud or dirt or whatever on your hands. Better hope your wife never needs to use it. Etc.

Accidental discharges aren't a problem we need to be solving. They done been solved. They're so exceedingly rare we might as well start investing in technology to prevent unicorn attacks. Negligent discharges are the problem, and technology's not going to stop those.

I think you guys are long overdue some form of gun control. Kudos to Obama for at least trying.

Also I think this piece from the Daily Show kinda hits the nail on the head...

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think you guys are long overdue some form of gun control. Kudos to Obama for at least trying.

Also I think this piece from the Daily Show kinda hits the nail on the head...

When you say things like "we are long overdue for some kind of gun control" do you mean in addition to all the gun control we already have, or do you think that up until this point there have been no laws regulating guns?

Also, as much as I generally like the daily show, that video is pretty terrible.

I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.

Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.

Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.

Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Not to mention frankly unnecessary beyond what we have now. If you are truly so lost as to not remember the four rules (The ones listed in that little book you read to learn how to take the gun apart.) or even the basic sense of "If the hole points at me and my finger gets on the trigger there may be a big ol hole in me" then sitting in front of someone droning in monotone for an hour and a piece of paper isn't going to help you. To keep this from veering off topic: How would a "Smart gun" improve the situation in any meaningful way?

To manage to shoot oneself barring outright mechanical failure, several things MUST be true: There must be a round chambered. It must be pointed at some part of your body. Something must also be activating the trigger. Even -INCLUDING- mechanical failure that spontaneously fires the weapon, it must still be pointed at some point of your body (Which begs the question as to WHY you are pointing a gun at yourself.) In the case of most existing designs where the owner wears a ring, presumably he is still wearing it, thus deactivating the safety assuming that the tech is reliable in the first place.

Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns?

Heard of Form 4473? Again to keep this on topic: Assuming it were not illegal for a centralized database of gun owners and their guns to be maintained, the idea of remote electronic tracking (and possibly deactivation) is appealing on exactly zero levels. None.

Would safety training be so bad,?

Quite possibly, depending on specifics.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think you guys are long overdue some form of gun control. Kudos to Obama for at least trying.

Also I think this piece from the Daily Show kinda hits the nail on the head...

I am in love with this video.

 SOFDC wrote:

Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Not to mention frankly unnecessary beyond what we have now. If you are truly so lost as to not remember the four rules (The ones listed in that little book you read to learn how to take the gun apart.) or even the basic sense of "If the hole points at me and my finger gets on the trigger there may be a big ol hole in me" then sitting in front of someone droning in monotone for an hour and a piece of paper isn't going to help you. To keep this from veering off topic: How would a "Smart gun" improve the situation in any meaningful way?

To manage to shoot oneself barring outright mechanical failure, several things MUST be true: There must be a round chambered. It must be pointed at some part of your body. Something must also be activating the trigger. Even -INCLUDING- mechanical failure that spontaneously fires the weapon, it must still be pointed at some point of your body (Which begs the question as to WHY you are pointing a gun at yourself.) In the case of most existing designs where the owner wears a ring, presumably he is still wearing it, thus deactivating the safety assuming that the tech is reliable in the first place.

Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns?

Heard of Form 4473? Again to keep this on topic: Assuming it were not illegal for a centralized database of gun owners and their guns to be maintained, the idea of remote electronic tracking (and possibly deactivation) is appealing on exactly zero levels. None.

Would safety training be so bad,?

Quite possibly, depending on specifics.

What specifics would make additional gun training so bad? I am curious.

Its a laundry list, and I find it far more pressing than the gunlaws as someone has mentioned most gun related deaths are caused by suicide

It's worth noting, though, that in other countries where major gun control laws were enacted, while the gun suicide rate dropped, the overall suicide rate did not. People just chose different methods.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.

Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.

Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.

What would safety training accomplish? Injury rates for owning a gun are extremely low, far lower than, say, owning a pool, using a ladder, storing harmfuul chemicals in easy access to children, etc. When you purchase a firearm, you do in fact need to demonstrate knowledge of both firearm safety rules and how the firearm functions. Adding some sort of class would only add unnecessary fees and inconveniences to the buyer. And it's not like it will stop stupid people from being stupid any more than ecisting requirements do.

Similarly, what would the serial numbers really accomplish? Most firearms used in crime are stolen, and it's more difficult to link a particular firearm to a particular bullet and to a particular shooter than tv police procedural shows let on. Meanwhile, a lot of gun owners are super uncomfortable with gun ownership being either public knowledge, or suddenly being put on something that's barely one step removed from a goverment watch list. Considering the controversies surrounding FBI and NSA privacy violations in other areas, does it suprise you that people don't want to be on a politically controversial list? As much as the redneck "guvment gunna take my guns" sentiment gets made fun of, it has happened before.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.

Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.

Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.

Should folks be forced to attend mandatory training on how to safely exercise their right to free speech? Should that be a Federal Gov't issue? Maybe mandatory training on child proofing homes and swimming pools, accidents are killing kids at appalling rates. No way folks should b allowed to have kids in their homes, even as guests without the Feds certifying they are safe, right?



I knew all I needed to about gun safety by the time I was 10, no need for a federally mandated class. Besides, the additional cost of ownership ends up hurting poor folks. Would you be okay with poll taxes where folks need to pay to exercise their right to vote?

As for a proper register of guns/owners? Very bad idea for many reasons.

Edited this. It's getting off topic and I have already said all I have to say on the matter.

More on topic:

Fingerprint scanners or something biometic in the grip? Better not have blood or mud or dirt or whatever on your hands. Better hope your wife never needs to use it.

This. In a military or LEO situation it will be worse. I sure hope no one is ever in a situation where they need to use a comrade`s weapon which is locked to the guy who is now missing 3/4ths of himself.

 DarkLink wrote:

Its a laundry list, and I find it far more pressing than the gunlaws as someone has mentioned most gun related deaths are caused by suicide

It's worth noting, though, that in other countries where major gun control laws were enacted, while the gun suicide rate dropped, the overall suicide rate did not. People just chose different methods.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.

Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.

Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.

What would safety training accomplish? Injury rates for owning a gun are extremely low, far lower than, say, owning a pool, using a ladder, storing harmfuul chemicals in easy access to children, etc. When you purchase a firearm, you do in fact need to demonstrate knowledge of both firearm safety rules and how the firearm functions. Adding some sort of class would only add unnecessary fees and inconveniences to the buyer. And it's not like it will stop stupid people from being stupid any more than ecisting requirements do.

Similarly, what would the serial numbers really accomplish? Most firearms used in crime are stolen, and it's more difficult to link a particular firearm to a particular bullet and to a particular shooter than tv police procedural shows let on. Meanwhile, a lot of gun owners are super uncomfortable with gun ownership being either public knowledge, or suddenly being put on something that's barely one step removed from a goverment watch list. Considering the controversies surrounding FBI and NSA privacy violations in other areas, does it suprise you that people don't want to be on a politically controversial list? As much as the redneck "guvment gunna take my guns" sentiment gets made fun of, it has happened before.

You know how you stop stupid people from doing stupid things? You teach them. Mind = Blown

Also, serial numbers would increase accountability of gun owners. The plus side to this would be that gun owners would be more inclined to keep their weapons in a place they could not be stolen as well as make them report the thefts. Which is something they do not do now.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.

Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.

Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.

Should folks be forced to attend mandatory training on how to safely exercise their right to free speech? Should that be a Federal Gov't issue? Maybe mandatory training on child proofing homes and swimming pools, accidents are killing kids at appalling rates. No way folks should b allowed to have kids in their homes, even as guests without the Feds certifying they are safe, right?

Spoiler:

I knew all I needed to about gun safety by the time I was 10, no need for a federally mandated class. Besides, the additional cost of ownership ends up hurting poor folks. Would you be okay with poll taxes where folks need to pay to exercise their right to vote?

As for a proper register of guns/owners? Very bad idea for many reasons.

What are the numbers of deaths caused by the first amendment? Can you get me a number on those?

Congratulations on knowing all you needed to about gun safety by 10! A lot of people do not have the luxury of that sort of education. I didn't know everything I needed to know about gun safety until I was 13 when I attended a state mandated safety class at the local gun club. (It was free!)

So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.

No, that is not my argument. Safety training won't prevent any intentional use of a gun to injure or kill another. It may prevent some accidental injuries and deaths. So it seems you are the one reaching for an argument.

Seaward wrote:
That's why everyone involved professionally in the defensive gun use training world speaks negatively of "smart" guns. There's just way too much nonsense associated with it for every little payoff. Fingerprint scanners or something biometic in the grip? Better not have blood or mud or dirt or whatever on your hands. Better hope your wife never needs to use it. Etc.

Accidental discharges aren't a problem we need to be solving. They done been solved. They're so exceedingly rare we might as well start investing in technology to prevent unicorn attacks. Negligent discharges are the problem, and technology's not going to stop those.

Better hope you don't have to use your gun in the winter either, because wearing gloves does not mix with biometrics

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think you guys are long overdue some form of gun control. Kudos to Obama for at least trying.

To keep us vaguely on topic, what EOs do you believe the POTUS should have implemented?

And is that the same Daily Show that aired a segment about a good guy with a gun by someone claimed to want to learn about owning a gun, yet went who went out of his way to not learn?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.

Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Would safety training be so bad,? Most pro-gun people are in favour, saying that no responsible gun owner, etc, and it's promoted by the NRA.

Leaving aside the obvious Constitutional issues because that will get us off topic the issue with mandatory training is that some States use it as a bar to exercising your right. In DC it was a requirement but finding an instructor seemed next to impossible because of the regulations. In other States local laws on who could train and where their venues could be set up were designed in such a way as to be exceedingly difficult to comply with. So the issue is not with the training per se, the issue is that there is not a lot of faith that it will not be used as a way of preventing people exercising their rights.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns? One of the reasons for serial numbers is to trace the ownership of weapons if they are used in a crime. The USA is worried about gun crimes. It's a major motivation for wanting to have a gun.

Getting off topic here - because for many people a registry of guns is seen as the first step in confiscation. And given the current POTUS's admiration for Australian style mandatory buy backs (i.e. confiscation) people may say that fear is founded.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.

No, that is not my argument. Safety training won't prevent any intentional use of a gun to injure or kill another. It may prevent some accidental injuries and deaths. So it seems you are the one reaching for an argument.

Fantastic! I am happy you realized that Gun Training will help prevent accidental injuries and death. I assume by your remark here that you are for decreasing accidental injuries and deaths by promoting gun training!

Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?

Would you address the topic of this thread, namely the Executive Orders announced yesterday? We have had several Moderator warnings to keep the thread on topic, as well as appeals from the community, and it would be nice if we could not get this thread locked.

Thank you.