UPDATE (8/6): For the record, according to reporting by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, the shooter who murdered three women and wounded nine others at a Pittsburgh-area fitness club held a permit from the State of Pennsylvania to carry concealed weapons.
Two weeks ago, gun violence prevention organizations helped defeat a bill in Congress that would have allowed this killer to carry his loaded weapon almost anywhere in the country.
About three months ago, Congress approved legislation that would have allowed this killer to carry his loaded weapons in nearly every national park in the country.
#
Another in a long line of hateful, murderous shootings occurred last night in Pennsylvania.
According to reports, a man -- apparently consumed with a long-simmering anger concerning women and heavily armed -- walked into a suburban Pittsburgh fitness club where he was a member, and found a dance class with a number of women.
The killer reportedly turned off the lights, and then fired over 40 rounds of ammunition into the room in about a minute, killing at least three people and wounding another nine or more.
Then, like so many of these suicide shooters, he killed himself.
If President Obama and our other elected officials believe this incident is worthy of their attention at all, hopefully they will promise to explore ways to prevent such rampages in the future, rather than merely express "deep sadness" -- along with an unstated hope that America's gun violence problem somehow will just go away on its own.
This "nothing new that we can do" approach didn't work after the Amish school shootings in Pennsylvania in October 2006, or the Pittsburgh police killings earlier this year, and yesterday's massacre shows that it's not working now.
It's obviously too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in this country.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
It appears that the program makes sense if the "big" clunker you own is now worth less than $4,500. It does not appear that you are restricted to buying cars that cost more than $20k. In fact, I just saw a Nissan commercial for a local NC dealer that claims there are a couple of sub-compacts you can buy for less than $8k net, factoring in the cash for clunkers and "factory discounts". I don't see how this hurts any particular socio/economic class unless you define "hurt" as not being able to trade-in a honking huge SUV or truck for another honking huge SUV or truck.
But back to guns, what do you think about the "libertarian" who openly carried to an Obama town hall in New Hampshire? He was on Hardball the next day where he expressed his opposition to social security, medicare, and the federal income tax, hence the "libertarian" branding. Was this meant to be a "militia's warning?"
As to the cash-for-clunkers thing, people of modest means replace their cars when they can afford to purchase something better than what they have now. If I could get $4500 toward trading mine on a newer USED car, I would jump at it. I can't afford $8K net, though, and even if I could, doing so to buy something inferior to what I have now (a stripped-down loss leader subcompact) wouldn't make sense.
Further down the socioeconomic ladder, my best friend is a single mother driving a 150,000mi compact with no working A/C because that is the best car she can afford. It is a shame that we can't take the newer passenger cars that the government has purchased and slated for destruction, and somehow swap them for older, less functional, and more polluting cars like my friend's (or even mine)---or the *true* clunkers that will continue to spew blue smoke for years because the people who drive them can't afford to trade up.
The guy in New Hampshire didn't carry to "an Obama town hall". He was OUTSIDE the building on private property (with the owner's permission). He never so much as saw the president, much less got within shooting distance of him.
I don't doubt for a second that the gun would fail some of the criteria you detailed for me in the past. But as I also stated in the past, you're not making the rules.
But if you want to check out the technical aspects of the New Jersey Institute of Technology R & D approach to date, you can find it below:
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2007
Handgrip Recognition
Zong Chen, Assistant Professor, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Michael Recce, Associate Professor, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Abstract: Dynamic handgrip recognition is a new biometric authentication method based on the human grasping behavior. Handgrip pattern recognition seeks to analyze the dynamics inherent in grasping behavior such as how the pressure varying during the grasping process. A novel real-time biometric system based on handgrip pattern is proposed for smart gun design in this paper. An experiment was initialized and the results proved that handgrip pattern recognition is a promising biometric technology for smart gun design.
http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1226.pdf
The IEEE article I posted downthread suggested that current recognition technologies are incapable of attaining the promised reliability, as I recall.
As to the "clunkers", you can help some people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't help all of the people all of the time.
Umm, no.
Kleck's studies have been widely panned as inaccurate and having used sloppy methodologies.
Here's one small example: Kleck claims 2.5M DGUs per year. Kleck also says that in 8% of these DGUs, the gun is fired at the perpetrator, wounding him. Kleck states 15% of all gunshot woundings are fatal. If you do the math, this means there are 30,000 perps killed by DGUs per year. According to the FBI UCARS, fewer than 300 people per year are killed in justifiable homicides--from all causes.
Kleck also states 33% of all DGUs involve burglary or theft at home. Doing the math, we see this means there are 825,000 DGUs involving burglary. Again, FBI UCARS data says there are approx. 1M burglaries each year when someone is home. This means, according to Kleck, about 83% of all burglaries where someone is home involves a DGU.
The list goes on. Note I'm using Kleck's own findings.
"
No, actually you misquote what Kleck said. This tactic has been tried in the past by others.
Let's take them one at a time. Do you deny Kleck-Gertz had a conclusion to one their studies that said there were as many as 2.5 DGUs annually in the US? If you disagree that Kleck stated this, you'll be taking issue with most pro-gun groups--including the NRA--which cite this figure as Gospel.
Do you disagree Kleck stated that 8% of DGUs involved the wounding of a perpetrator? If so, see pp. 173-4 of Kleck-Gertz that states 17 of the sample cases--or 8.3% of DGUs--involved a wounding. If we assume a 95% confidence level--which Kleck did (see pp.183-4)--we get a confidence interval of 8.3% +/- 3.8% or between 4.5% and 12.1%.
I realize, at this point, some will jump in and claim this means 4.5% is as likely as 8.3%. But this would earn you an "F" in probability and stats. In this case, it means 8.3 is the most likely value and the further one moves--plus or minus--from 8.3 the liklihood of that value decreases.
Do you diagree Kleck claimed 15% of all woundings result in death? If you do, you disagree with Kleck-gertz as well as Kleck's book "Targetting Guns"(pp.164).
But I would like to comment on BenEzra's most recent post. I have traded emails with the then local D.C. rep. for MetalStorm, I'd say this was eight or nine months ago. He didn't know what the status of their current work with NJIT was at the time. But I never got the impression that they were planning to market an expensive handgun that working class and middle class folks could not afford to buy and keep operational. On the contrary, if BE will refer back to his IEEE Spectrum article, the MetalStorm person being interviewed indicated that the Company did not think adding biometrics would add more than about $50, I believe, to the cost of the gun. A rep from a competing gun manufacturer argued the costs would double or triple every handguns cost, thus his Company's decision not to develop one.
And $50 over the price of a regular gun (for a non-Metal-Storm style system) might buy you consumer-grade sensors, electronics, and solenoid, and a cell-phone-grade battery for a range toy. But the grade of components necessary for the required reliability for a defensive firearm are going to cost far more than that. So will hardening the system against easy bypass.
It seems as this gun is meant for the person who buys a gun, loads it, and puts it in a drawer. It almost encourages this behavior by its design. The problem is that if you cannot afford to shoot your gun enough to become proficient then you should not have one. Clearly this gun is designed to be very expensive to shoot on a regular basis.
Instead of relying on technology to solve our problems maybe we should be trying to educate people on the safe handling, use and storage or their weapons.
I'm somewhat confused by this statement. In an earlier posting BenEzra provided us with information that indicated he was very familiar with this prototype (this is the prototype that come with seven bullets). But indicated that a major drawback is that the weapon would have to be returned to the manufacturer for reloading, which would obviously be a major obstacle to its finding a place in the markeplace. But this article indicates that it has a "rapid reload" capability.
BenEzra, or anyone else out there, have information that might clear up the apparent contradiction? Does any know what the current status of this product is? The article, afterall, is six years old.
If you are the military and have a logistics train that keeps you supplied with dozens of loaded barrel packs at taxpayer expense, then yes, you could reload the *gun* by swapping the barrel, yes. But you could not load ammunition in those barrels yourself; you would have to return the barrels to the factory, as I understand it.
FWIW, there is no chance of "jamming" with the Metal Storm system, yes, since it has no moving parts. The chance of *failure* is far higher with the NJ Metal Storm prototype than it is with a conventional handgun, though, undoubtedly one reason it is still in the prototype stage (and why no law enforcement agency will touch it).
What is the source of your statement that the prototypes failure chances are so high?
If an owner keeps three or four loaded barrel packs in stock I don't really see the problem of sending them back to MS for reloading (other than reliability and the "hassle") compared to keeping additional stocks on ammunition and magazine clips on hand for regular guns. The prospective owner would have to ask himself if the safety aspects re: child accidents and teen suicides, of the gun outweigh the costs and hassle of sending empty barrels back for reloading, and he might also factor in the societal good aspect in terms of having a gun that if stolen would be useless to criminals.
Absolutely no evidence to support this assertion.
In point of fact, it is almost assuredly backwards.
Why wouldn't a law-abiding citizen report a DFU? After all, if someone tries to break into your home and you prevent him from doing so by brandishing your firearm--wouldn't you want the perpetrator to be caught? At least, by reporting the crime, you'd probably get more frequent police patrols and the like to prevent this from happening to you or your neighbors again.
In reality, many DFUs aren't defensive in nature. As we know, most shootings occur between family and intimate acquaintances. Many DFUs are usually the byproduct of some domestic squabble or argument between folks who know each other. Usually, drugs and alcohol are a factor. That's why many so-called "DFUs" never get reported. Add in the fact that many DFUs probably include people who aren't eligible to possess guns.
Of course, your reluctance to notify the police is really indicative of something altogether different. It's far more likely you brandished a weapon--not at a criminal--but at a family member or acquaintance. There was probably liquor or drugs involved.
Tons of evidence to support this assertion. At least 13 studies indicate this - some of them even done by *gasp* GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES! If we look at rapes, we can see that only about 1 in 4 ever get reported.
"In reality, many DFUs aren't defensive in nature. As we know, most shootings occur between family and intimate acquaintances."
Road apples.
In desperation, Odin tries to equate DGUs with rape. Apparently, he believes being a victim of rape is the same as preventing a crime with a firearm. There's some very strange logic applied in this regard.
What's important to note is that DGUs are subjective; if Odin and Vespassian get liquored up and Odin threatens to beat up Vespassian and V. pulls a gun on him--is that a DGU? In V's mind, it probably is. In reality, however, it's 2 folks who got liquored up.
Contrary to what Vespasian claims, the FBI doesn't track DGUs. It may guesstimate them but their number is not based on any study done by them.
A woman raped and strangled to death with her own panties does not concern them.
In fact, a woman who uses a firearm to fend off a rapist is met with scorn and ridicule by the BC.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7YO9iIN5tFDz9NMN7w2E9a_Rl9gD99UDE500
"Conclusion: Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide."
You are like a drowning man going down for the third time.
I propose that under the Federal Economic Stimulus Package, local and state police agencies across the country be funded to the amount of roughly $3 billion over five years to better cooperate with the FBI in generating data currently either lacking or too vague to be of great use in the Uniform Crime Reporting series. Some or all of the following data points should be detailed.
How many violent gun crimes involved semi-automatic weapons of all types, broken down by pistol, rifle, caliber? How many had large volume magazines?
How did the shooter acquire the weapon? Bought it legally, bought it at gun show, bought it out of state, bought it illegally, as a straw purchase, from a friend, from a stranger, stole it from a home, from a gun shop.
Determine objectively in homes with guns: More or less likely for a family member to get shot (other than suicide) than homes without guns (there is data suggesting yes, but it's contested, if it comes from the FBI who got it from police agencies maybe it's less likely to be)? How many self-defense uses take place annually?
Much of this data would be under constant revision as more facts about a given case of firearm violence are learned, thus the size of budget.
It's not necessary to spend 3 billion dollars. Almost all of the stats you're looking for are compiled by the FBI/DOJ.
"Determine objectively in homes with guns: More or less likely for a family member to get shot (other than suicide) than homes without guns (there is data suggesting yes, but it's contested,"
It's contested partially because the DOJ/FBI puts the number of defensive uses of firearms at 80,000 a year. That's 219 a day. It seems that the criminals are in more danger from privately owned guns than Great Aunt Edna is after all.
If you are gathering data on firearms used in crimes, it should be make, model, caliber, and shots fired. Mag capacity is of little importance.
I wouldn't be surprised if it backfired, and gun sales to women spiked for a time.
TGSCOM has become the place to be for your serial killing needs.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1169
And now, to create a valid argument, jade is going to show us the proof that TGSCOM sold Sodini his accessories illegally..
We'll wait.......
And in other news, multiple car dealerships around the country have been shown to have supplied vehicles to individuals who have killed innocent victims in DUI related deaths.
The fact is, this guy didn't directly supply guns to anyone in PA, or VA Tech. Being an out-of -state dealer, he was required to send the guns to local dealers in PA and VA. The criminals involved had to go to these dealers in their own respective states, and go through the NICS check that the BC has decided to name after themselves, before they could take delivery of the firearms.
The press release from the BC makes ZERO mention of this fact, in their usual effort to hoodwink the public into thinking anybody at all can get guns through the mail.
Shallow and transparent, as usual, Jade.
Of course, making it sound like the VT shooter and the gym misogynist pig mail-ordered weapons from the same dealer is the impression the MSM apparently wished to convey.
It's sad when you think about how disconnected this guy was from reality, and how his ego made him shoot those women whom had nothing to do with his "not having sex" for 19 years. This poor excuse for a person should have realized that no matter what, he could not "make" women "like him." He was an arrogant idiot whom the cops/federal agents should have been using provisions in the Patriot Act as an excuse to monitor.
Of course, there are several fallacies in the statement above. First, suicide is treated very much differently in the US as opposed to Japan. In the US, there is a negative social stigma attached to suicide; it is widely perceived a person who commits or attempts suicide is mentally ill. In some US jurisdictions, suicide is a criminal act. In Japan, suicide is considered more traditionally; in many instances suicide may be considered socially and morally responsible. In fact, many insurance companies will pay benefits in the event of suicide and suicide has never been criminalized.
Second, when we compare a much more similar culture (the UK) we find their suicide rate (7.1 per 100,000) is much lower than the US (12.1 per 100,000). Of course the UK's murder rate is much lower than the US, as well.
BTW, the US suicide rate is higher than Australia's and Ireland's. Portugal and the US have the same rate.
But BenE is merely trying to muddy the waters.
This poor man was mentally disturbed. He should have been helped, but what happens to people who seek mental help in this country? They are ridiculed. That is the real tragedy.
But instead, all gun owners now must be judged by the lowest of examples in society. What kind of thinking does that do? Should we take the worst examples of a society and apply those judgements to everyone? I guess so-- in the world of people like Helmke and the Brady Center, simply owning a gun is an inexcusable crime, regardless of whether you've ever done anything wrong or not.
Clearly, it does not mesh with reality. After all, there is no group or organization calling for all gun ownership to be criminalized.
Why, then, does the Brady Center advocate increasingly restrictive regulations and prohibitions upon firearms? For what reason do they advocate the reinstatement and the expansion of the entirely irrational and unreasonable "assault weapons ban", seeking to prohibit a rarely criminally misused class of firearm based solely upon the presence of cosmetic features? For what reason did they investigate the feasibility of instigating a federal handgun ban soon after the passage of the now-expired federal assault weapons ban?
Riiiiiiight.
IANSA simply wants to criminalize civilian ownership of any firearm capable of shooting beyond 100 yards.