They flooded the Facebook pages of both stores with angry comments; some even called in death threats, according to a video later posted by Andy Raymond, an owner of Engage Armament.
Of all the gun uses I am aware of among every person I have ever known, only one single bullet would have been prevented from leaving the barrel by a system like this.
That bullet killed a child and sent the (accidental) shooter to prison.
It's a question of tradeoffs. Making seatbelts mandatory was a major step in preventing accidental deaths. Ensuring that pools are safer (which doesn't necessarily mean banning them...) would also be beneficial. As for gun safety, what's wrong with investigating how to prevent instances of mass murders which by now make a regular appearance in US news, since apparently the pro-gun lobby is too strong to outright ban weapons? Not to mention children playing with unsecured firearms.
Just to be clear, I think that people should have the right to purchase these RFID guns, but I think any sort of mandate requiring them is bad news for a number of reasons.
I'd be willing to investigate things like trigger locks or home safes or licensing IF we on the gun rights side of the discussion could get something too. Namely a repeal of the hughes amendment. Also this is something I think would be better dolled out state by state.
People here in alaska don't want the same things that people in new york or california do.
It's a strawman in the sense that it doesn't characterize my position correctly: in this case, I'm not pushing for "banning all the things", or even the things under discussion. Furthermore, I don't see how you can call mass murders "accidental deaths". They are all quite deliberate.
As for the rest, I'm afraid that being from the other side of the pond prevents me from being familiar with the various US gun laws...
I own half a dozen firearms and I wish smart gun technology worked. The main problem with RFID smart guns is that they can be jammed. If such tech was required by law, any criminal with a jammer would create a zone where only they could shoot. This makes RFID guns useless for any sort of self or home defense. Likewise, police wouldn't be able to use them. There are similar problems with fingerprint reading. Reading a fingerprint isn't very reliable (dirt, cuts, etc), and the owner may need to use the gun while wearing gloves.
On the sort-of bright side, unintentional gun deaths are only around 3% of all firearm homicides. One could save many more lives by further restricting handguns. For example: make getting a handgun more like getting a private pilot's license. Unfortunately, such restrictions are probably unconstitutional.
> If such tech was required by law, any criminal with a jammer would create a zone where only they could shoot.
I don't see why the system would do that. A "fail-safe" doesn't always mean failing closed; sometimes it means failing open. That is, if there is a jammer, then fall back to letting anyone shoot anyone, which is no worse than things are now. If there isn't a jammer, then let the law say who can shoot people.
(Yes, then anyone can buy their own personal jammer to make their gun "work." People can also override those breathalyzer-meters that they have to blow into to get their cars to start. But, by-and-large, do they?)
Does it know it's being jammed? Or does it just think that there is no connection? Would "jam rejection" result in a lot of false positives where a reasonable time w/o RFID heartbeat results in your "full open" mode?
Still sounds like a bunch of expensive security kit with its barn doors open.
"Jamming" usually works by putting out a bunch of energy on the same frequencies to overwhelm any actual signal. So, detect the overall amount of radio coming in, and turn off auth if it's too high.
The Lawgiver gun from Dredd, which is one of the most influential examples, used grip sensors. It also tagged each bullet with the gun owner's DNA, which is in some ways an even more interesting idea.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not specify that every person has that right, just that the community in general does. Having licensing requirements hasn't noticeably restricted the people of the USA from keeping and using automobiles.
The fact that not everyone in the USA has the right is pretty well established, such as convicted felons or the mentally disturbed.
Also, there is an existing permit system in operation for extending gun rights, such as concealed carry. All a licence would do is codify an expected level of responsibility that already exists anyway in the laws concerning guns. Besides, if someone can't stay within the confines of basic range safety for the hour or so it would take to pass a test, then perhaps they shouldn't have a gun.
I accept that the current legal interpretation is not currently in that direction, however I'll also note that it has changed several times and that recent court cases have come out against gun registration, but not as far as I am aware against a gun license being required for purchase, as you are allowed state laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The thing I think is funny about all this is people who wish to lessen our gun rights constantly talk about compromise but are never willing to give anything up.
I'd be willing to jump through a few hoops to get rid of the Hughes amendment [1] What would you consider a fair trade for this?
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Felons and the mentally ill have many of their rights curtailed. Voting is an individual right, but felons typically can't vote. Mentally ill people can be imprisoned and forcefully drugged.
Individuals can be deprived of rights so long as there is due process.
You can kill other people with the gun you own, it is difficult to kill other people in your backyard pool.
PS: Also, the numbers presented in the CDC link were for 4 years. The # of deaths by gun-violence (homicide + suicide by gun) in USA per year exceeds # of pool deaths per year by a factor of at least 20.
I'm talking about accidental deaths. I have no issue with legal homicide (in self defense) or suicide. RFID guns won't stop either of those from happening.
The article was about RFID activated guns. I'm sorry I'm responding to a lot of people at once I didn't notice that you wanted to ban all of them. That's not going to happen any time soon.
It would be pretty difficult to carry out here in Alaska. And as for staying the fuck away from guns? that's pretty difficult in my house:
http://i.imgur.com/0rkkmuP.jpg
Because suicidal decisions are made during moments of intense stress? Suiciders want it to be quick and painless?
If you look at how Britain's transition from coal gas to natural gas reduced suicide rates it is not hard to imagine same would happen if guns were banned.
Honest question: what exactly is the benefit of of allowing civilian gun ownership, which you imply balances out the "collateral damage" of accidental death?
From a European point of view, it looks absurd. Most criminals here do not use guns because very few are in circulation. Minor conflicts do not escalate into murder, because it's hard to kill without a weapon. And guns are not available for would-be suicides and accidental shootings.
On the other hand, if you're concerned about self-defence, you're free to learn a martial art. No restrictions on that.
The concept of self determination and autonomy is strong to most Americans.
We don't like having to rely on someone else for our own safety. The police will never get there in time to save you. Judo isn't going to save the elderly from a mugging or a small woman from a gang rape. A gun can though.
What choice do you have when a criminal breaks into your home? Do you cry out to them "look out I'm calling the police" and then return to cower in your hiding place hoping they don't cause you or your loved ones physical harm?
We like being able to hunt and provide food for our families. It's a very primal thing that most people have lost touch with. To be out in the wilderness stalking an animal as a predator. It's something we have done for Eons. We've done it for longer than we've been people for christ's sake. I can provide myself top quality meat doing this at a fraction of the cost. Plus I know where it came from and that it lived a better life than some cow in a slaughter farm.
The entire concept of the U.S. was built on people who were sick of their government fucking them over. So they kicked the government out. We wouldn't have been able to do that without guns, so we enshrined it in our constitution should it ever happen again. It's literally the second amendment because it's nearly as important as freedom of speech, and not the watered down freedom of speech they have over there in europe. We want it all, hate speech and the lot of it. Not because we like hate speech, but because we believe good ideas stand on their own merit and bad ideas should be aired out in public and debated and dismissed so as not to fester clandestinely.
Many lives have been sacrificed on the altar of gun rights just as many feelings have been hurt and lives lost because of our freedom of speech. The sacrifice is well worth it and will continue.
in short "freedom is not free" also
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Ben Franklin
A lot of suicides (not all, but many) not only require the urge to kill yourself, but also the opportunity. The urge is a passing thing, it's sometimes stronger, just to get weaker afterwards. So if you have no gun (or other means) ready, there's a high chance that you will not commit suicide.
There's obvious survivor bias, but those who attempted suicide and failed often go on to live fulfilling lives. Making it harder to carry out a self-homicide, or making it much more painful/scary than a gunshot to the head means fewer people will make a decision they would have, if they were able, regretted.
First of all, I (and majority of sane people) will consider self defense ("Trayvon Martin case, etc.") and suicides in the death count. That being said, if we exclude suicides and self defense then we still have a factor of ~12.
I have a few guns but I don't have a backyard pool.
I'm showing the relative lack of a problem. People aren't up in arms about banning pools because they enjoy using them when its hot out and they consider it worth the risk.
Similarly people who don't own guns see no problem with restricting or banning them in some way because it will have no negative affect on their lives.
Is there any evidence that these can be jammed? Jamming something direct or near-field signals is a non-trivial problem. For a quick example of the difficulties, look up police radar gun jamming - because the punchline on that is that it's basically impossible to do.
The simplest jamming method would be to emit sufficient noise on the frequency used by the RFID. I don't know why you say radar gun jamming is impossible. Jammers exist, but are illegal to use.[1]
Theoretically any signal can be jammed, the question is if its practical to do so on the necessary scale. Radar guns are notable because a directional beam can be much stronger for the same power then the omnidirectional jamming needed to defeat it. Moreover, most schemes to jam it can do funny things like indicate a higher speed or produce a good enough source the radar just tracks that instead.
So 'jamming' is an uncompelling argument unless someone can show a practical, situation relevant jammer. Such a thing may exist for a smartgun - but its ridiculuous to let people throw out jamming as an objection to a specific technology, as it would be to throw out 'hacking' over some type of computer technology.
I'm not typically a gun person, but this seems like a really flawed idea. As the article describes it, it's a gun that only works against an unprepared enemy. Anyone with an RF jammer could completely stop its use, if I understand it correctly. It wouldn't be much more complicated to make a device that could pick up its frequency from a distance and use it on a stolen weapon either. Of course some cryptographic exchange between the watch and the gun would fix that, but it still doesn't prevent you from jamming it.
In cases like many school shootings, where the gun was stolen ahead of time, all it does is require the culprit to steal the watch too. A physical key (old-fashioned or cryptographic) would do the same thing but more reliably.
The term "smart gun" brings to mind a development that I think most users of HN would agree is a bad idea. Making a gun that tries to automatically determine who's authorized to shoot whom, like a Dominator from Psycho-Pass, seems to open up a whole mess of problems. Making more reliable non-lethal weapons is the direction I'd rather see the problem attacked from.
Tanks also only work against an unprepared enemy, but I think many will agree that tanks can still do lots of damage, even given the prevalence of armor-piercing munitions and anti-tank weaponry.
In practice, how many people are going to have RFID jammers, and how many of those will reliably work? I'm guessing that that'd be close to zero. Related, Psycho Pass is an interesting anime which goes into the issue of "smart guns" and the subversion of their safeguards. It's also a damn interesting series.
Small correction; the article said that you also need to enter a code on the watch to activate it. Assuming that this was set to a sensible and private PIN, stealing the watch won't help much.
Crazy. So in the name of "freedom", these gun-nuts want to deprive other people of the freedom to buy a safer gun if they want. I really wish they'll find a way to sell it anyway.
PS to all the gun-nuts dowvoters: Thanks for showing how you really value freedom.
Nobody is against selling this kind of guns per se - people are against the laws mandating "smarts in all guns" that would be triggered, if this kind of guns become available.
I actually think there's a strong argument that regulation is more to blame:
Part of the reaction stemmed from a little-known New Jersey law passed in 2002 by gun-control advocates. Once a personalized weapon went on sale in the United States, the law said, then within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to include such safety features.
It seems like greater adherence to free market principles could actually have avoided the problem -- without that law, intense opposition to smart guns would likely have not occurred as it did, or at least not to such an extent.
Gun rights activists focus their energy on regulation and practically nothing else, which is why smart guns were so strongly opposed -- it was opposition to regulation, not safety.
If the market was actually consensual, then innovations like this might actually have a chance to take hold as evidenced by people buying or not buying the product in an open market. Such market forces may even lead to a smart gun that actually works reliably in all the situations it needs to.
However, laws such as the New Jersey one have taken away this opportunity by introducing a coercive element. This has completely changed the dynamic.
This article is very reminiscent of "The Weapon Shops of Isher"- it's always a strange feeling when the lines between science fiction and reality start to blur.
What would prevent people from disassembling this, replacing a few parts and making new gun? Making hand gun is very simple once you have basic components, such as barrel and bullets.
I am worried that this will become yet another obstruction for gun holders. Germany (and EU) is crazy, pepper sprays or even pocket knives are banned. Neighbouring Czech rep. is more liberal and has comparable crime rate.
> What would prevent people from disassembling this, replacing a few parts and making new gun? Making hand gun is very simple once you have basic components, such as barrel and bullets.
Nothing, but why would you want to? The whole point is so you can buy a gun that only you can use (and not e.g. your kid). I guess a thief might still steal a gun and then disable the system, but making life harder for such a thief is a good thing even if it doesn't make it impossible (just like an engine immobilizer). But if you're worried about "bad guys", the point is just to stop accidental shootings. There's nothing in the system that would stop you deliberately e.g. shooting a cop with one (as long as you had the wristband on).
2-The smart watch(via Patriot Act) is going to require the government has a back door or mechanism that could disable it remotely when the government wants it disabled, like they do with computer software and hardware.
The second amendment reason for existence is controlling the people in power against abuses on the people. Of course people in power want to get rid of it while militarizing the police(because hard times are coming).
controlling the people in power against abuses on the people
So how's that working out for you then? This story is right next to one on HN about NSA abuses, and there's the ongoing saga of police violence against black people. Is gun ownership somehow going to make a difference there? How do you expect armed politics to end other than incredibly badly?
The "government"'s usual device for disabling a gun is a bullet to the head of the person holding it.
The "nuts" in this story seem to have a very acute understanding of the legal and propagandistic climate in their country and the medium to long term implications of mandatory "smart" technology in personal handguns.
I can't help but think that gun control activists have, pardon the pun, shot themselves in the foot with the New Jersey law:
Once a personalized weapon went on sale in the United States, the law said, then within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to include such safety features.
How could they not have seen that passing such a law would impede advancements in gun safety by creating opposition which would not have otherwise existed (or at least to this extent), but for this law?
I suppose it is possible that gun safety was never actually the goal to begin with, but it still seems like such a predictable result, given the ferocity with which any real or perceived encroachment on the Second Amendment is met.
On the one hand, it's kind of amusing, in a way, to watch the instant, reflexive backlash which invariably erupts in response to even the slightest suggestion of tighter gun control. On the other, it might make some sense if one were inclined to take a conspiratorial view of the true purpose of laws like this one in New Jersey.
Not really sure why smart guns have to be so dang hi tech? How about a gun that can't be left with safety off for more than 30minutes, and requires a pin-code to remove safety?
We can make pill jars impossible for 5year olds to open. How hard can it be to make a gun too hard to use?
That sounds like a really good idea to me. No problems with jamming in that case. Obviously it wouldn't work in all cases, like for police officers who might need to use their gun at a moment's notice, but it sounds great for recreational and home-defense firearms.
83 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 153 ms ] threadThat bullet killed a child and sent the (accidental) shooter to prison.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/wa...
Edit: compare that with the fact that in 2011 there were 600 accidental deaths from firearms.
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pd...
It's a question of tradeoffs. Making seatbelts mandatory was a major step in preventing accidental deaths. Ensuring that pools are safer (which doesn't necessarily mean banning them...) would also be beneficial. As for gun safety, what's wrong with investigating how to prevent instances of mass murders which by now make a regular appearance in US news, since apparently the pro-gun lobby is too strong to outright ban weapons? Not to mention children playing with unsecured firearms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Just to be clear, I think that people should have the right to purchase these RFID guns, but I think any sort of mandate requiring them is bad news for a number of reasons.
I'd be willing to investigate things like trigger locks or home safes or licensing IF we on the gun rights side of the discussion could get something too. Namely a repeal of the hughes amendment. Also this is something I think would be better dolled out state by state.
People here in alaska don't want the same things that people in new york or california do.
As for the rest, I'm afraid that being from the other side of the pond prevents me from being familiar with the various US gun laws...
On the sort-of bright side, unintentional gun deaths are only around 3% of all firearm homicides. One could save many more lives by further restricting handguns. For example: make getting a handgun more like getting a private pilot's license. Unfortunately, such restrictions are probably unconstitutional.
I don't see why the system would do that. A "fail-safe" doesn't always mean failing closed; sometimes it means failing open. That is, if there is a jammer, then fall back to letting anyone shoot anyone, which is no worse than things are now. If there isn't a jammer, then let the law say who can shoot people.
(Yes, then anyone can buy their own personal jammer to make their gun "work." People can also override those breathalyzer-meters that they have to blow into to get their cars to start. But, by-and-large, do they?)
Still sounds like a bunch of expensive security kit with its barn doors open.
I have trouble believing Armatix would develop a version targeted at law enforcement without taking that into consideration.
I think the usual movie-technology solution is a fingerprint sensor in the trigger.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
Also, there is an existing permit system in operation for extending gun rights, such as concealed carry. All a licence would do is codify an expected level of responsibility that already exists anyway in the laws concerning guns. Besides, if someone can't stay within the confines of basic range safety for the hour or so it would take to pass a test, then perhaps they shouldn't have a gun.
I accept that the current legal interpretation is not currently in that direction, however I'll also note that it has changed several times and that recent court cases have come out against gun registration, but not as far as I am aware against a gun license being required for purchase, as you are allowed state laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I'd be willing to jump through a few hoops to get rid of the Hughes amendment [1] What would you consider a fair trade for this?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Individuals can be deprived of rights so long as there is due process.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/wa...
You can kill other people with the gun you own, it is difficult to kill other people in your backyard pool.
PS: Also, the numbers presented in the CDC link were for 4 years. The # of deaths by gun-violence (homicide + suicide by gun) in USA per year exceeds # of pool deaths per year by a factor of at least 20.
How does a legally owned RFID activated gun prevent someone from killing themselves with it?
At best you should stay the fuck away from guns.
It would be pretty difficult to carry out here in Alaska. And as for staying the fuck away from guns? that's pretty difficult in my house: http://i.imgur.com/0rkkmuP.jpg
Also I'm quite aware of gun culture in US. Chance of changing that are nonexistent. I can however appeal to people that are intending to buy a gun.
If you look at how Britain's transition from coal gas to natural gas reduced suicide rates it is not hard to imagine same would happen if guns were banned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?...
From a European point of view, it looks absurd. Most criminals here do not use guns because very few are in circulation. Minor conflicts do not escalate into murder, because it's hard to kill without a weapon. And guns are not available for would-be suicides and accidental shootings.
On the other hand, if you're concerned about self-defence, you're free to learn a martial art. No restrictions on that.
We don't like having to rely on someone else for our own safety. The police will never get there in time to save you. Judo isn't going to save the elderly from a mugging or a small woman from a gang rape. A gun can though.
What choice do you have when a criminal breaks into your home? Do you cry out to them "look out I'm calling the police" and then return to cower in your hiding place hoping they don't cause you or your loved ones physical harm?
We like being able to hunt and provide food for our families. It's a very primal thing that most people have lost touch with. To be out in the wilderness stalking an animal as a predator. It's something we have done for Eons. We've done it for longer than we've been people for christ's sake. I can provide myself top quality meat doing this at a fraction of the cost. Plus I know where it came from and that it lived a better life than some cow in a slaughter farm.
The entire concept of the U.S. was built on people who were sick of their government fucking them over. So they kicked the government out. We wouldn't have been able to do that without guns, so we enshrined it in our constitution should it ever happen again. It's literally the second amendment because it's nearly as important as freedom of speech, and not the watered down freedom of speech they have over there in europe. We want it all, hate speech and the lot of it. Not because we like hate speech, but because we believe good ideas stand on their own merit and bad ideas should be aired out in public and debated and dismissed so as not to fester clandestinely.
Many lives have been sacrificed on the altar of gun rights just as many feelings have been hurt and lives lost because of our freedom of speech. The sacrifice is well worth it and will continue.
in short "freedom is not free" also
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Ben Franklin
How many firearm suicides are carried out using stolen guns?
I don't blame the pool, I don't want pools banned.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
I'm showing the relative lack of a problem. People aren't up in arms about banning pools because they enjoy using them when its hot out and they consider it worth the risk.
Similarly people who don't own guns see no problem with restricting or banning them in some way because it will have no negative affect on their lives.
You can shoot for sport too. Hence why there are various olympic events involving it.
Shooting animals for sport is also a subset of this. Why on earth do you think it can't be used as a recreational hobby?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector#Radar_scrambling
So 'jamming' is an uncompelling argument unless someone can show a practical, situation relevant jammer. Such a thing may exist for a smartgun - but its ridiculuous to let people throw out jamming as an objection to a specific technology, as it would be to throw out 'hacking' over some type of computer technology.
In cases like many school shootings, where the gun was stolen ahead of time, all it does is require the culprit to steal the watch too. A physical key (old-fashioned or cryptographic) would do the same thing but more reliably.
The term "smart gun" brings to mind a development that I think most users of HN would agree is a bad idea. Making a gun that tries to automatically determine who's authorized to shoot whom, like a Dominator from Psycho-Pass, seems to open up a whole mess of problems. Making more reliable non-lethal weapons is the direction I'd rather see the problem attacked from.
Quite similar to a normal gun then.
In practice, how many people are going to have RFID jammers, and how many of those will reliably work? I'm guessing that that'd be close to zero. Related, Psycho Pass is an interesting anime which goes into the issue of "smart guns" and the subversion of their safeguards. It's also a damn interesting series.
PS to all the gun-nuts dowvoters: Thanks for showing how you really value freedom.
Part of the reaction stemmed from a little-known New Jersey law passed in 2002 by gun-control advocates. Once a personalized weapon went on sale in the United States, the law said, then within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to include such safety features.
It seems like greater adherence to free market principles could actually have avoided the problem -- without that law, intense opposition to smart guns would likely have not occurred as it did, or at least not to such an extent.
Gun rights activists focus their energy on regulation and practically nothing else, which is why smart guns were so strongly opposed -- it was opposition to regulation, not safety.
If the market was actually consensual, then innovations like this might actually have a chance to take hold as evidenced by people buying or not buying the product in an open market. Such market forces may even lead to a smart gun that actually works reliably in all the situations it needs to.
However, laws such as the New Jersey one have taken away this opportunity by introducing a coercive element. This has completely changed the dynamic.
I am worried that this will become yet another obstruction for gun holders. Germany (and EU) is crazy, pepper sprays or even pocket knives are banned. Neighbouring Czech rep. is more liberal and has comparable crime rate.
http://i40.tinypic.com/13zcqyw.png
Nothing, but why would you want to? The whole point is so you can buy a gun that only you can use (and not e.g. your kid). I guess a thief might still steal a gun and then disable the system, but making life harder for such a thief is a good thing even if it doesn't make it impossible (just like an engine immobilizer). But if you're worried about "bad guys", the point is just to stop accidental shootings. There's nothing in the system that would stop you deliberately e.g. shooting a cop with one (as long as you had the wristband on).
1- It could be jammed by a 10 euro/dollar device.
2-The smart watch(via Patriot Act) is going to require the government has a back door or mechanism that could disable it remotely when the government wants it disabled, like they do with computer software and hardware.
The second amendment reason for existence is controlling the people in power against abuses on the people. Of course people in power want to get rid of it while militarizing the police(because hard times are coming).
So how's that working out for you then? This story is right next to one on HN about NSA abuses, and there's the ongoing saga of police violence against black people. Is gun ownership somehow going to make a difference there? How do you expect armed politics to end other than incredibly badly?
The "government"'s usual device for disabling a gun is a bullet to the head of the person holding it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip#Backlash
Once a personalized weapon went on sale in the United States, the law said, then within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to include such safety features.
How could they not have seen that passing such a law would impede advancements in gun safety by creating opposition which would not have otherwise existed (or at least to this extent), but for this law?
I suppose it is possible that gun safety was never actually the goal to begin with, but it still seems like such a predictable result, given the ferocity with which any real or perceived encroachment on the Second Amendment is met.
On the one hand, it's kind of amusing, in a way, to watch the instant, reflexive backlash which invariably erupts in response to even the slightest suggestion of tighter gun control. On the other, it might make some sense if one were inclined to take a conspiratorial view of the true purpose of laws like this one in New Jersey.
We can make pill jars impossible for 5year olds to open. How hard can it be to make a gun too hard to use?