The Chicago Tribune’s “Big Idea” On Guns

Armatix-SmartGun-The-Perfect-Combination-Between-a-Gun-and-a-Watch-4

From chicagotribune.com’s 4 big ideas to improve Chicago:

• Reduce gun violence by insisting on gun safety. “Thousands of Americans — die each year because of accidents with guns. Many people are killed when guns are stolen and then used in crimes. Gun safety technology is being developed that makes it impossible for anyone but the owner of the gun to use that weapon, but gun makers have been slow to integrate or refine these technologies. If the Chicago Police Department were to follow the lead of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and many other police departments and say to gun manufacturers, “You will only get future business from us if you agree to use state-of-the-art gun safety systems,” manufacturers would have to listen. This change, along with a much more vigorous crackdown on rogue gun dealers who sell weapons that end up at crime scenes, would dramatically reduce the damage done by those who wield guns in our city.

[h/t GT]

 

comments

  1. avatar hobbez says:

    I kinda agree. The only way I would even consider owning a “smart weapon” is after LE has been using them for years and years. I still wouldn’t give up my dumb guns though…

    1. avatar franklin the turtle says:

      they didn’t say “they” wanted them, just that that is what the gunmakers need to make for us lowly civilians for them to consider every buying (probably dumb) guns from them in the future

    2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Except– when they issue these edicts that they’ll only buy from manufacturers incorporating smart technology etc. It isn’t for the weapons they’re buying for the LEOs. It’s to push this onto weapons the manufacturer is selling to other civilians.

      I will never, ever, buy a ‘smart gun’ if I ever intend to use it in self-defense. The technology is absolutely incompatible with that purpose. Even if the LEs buy and use them– some one else making a stupid decision doesn’t make it any more reasonable for me to do the same thing. Or as mother used to say- ‘If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it?”

    3. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      I agree with hobbez. Let the LEO’s adopt them completely and see how it turns out.

    4. avatar getfreight says:

      I say that the manufacturers make these, “smart guns” and only sell them to law enforcement. Legislate that they are, “state of the art” and for LEO’s only.

      Then we’ll see how much they like , “smart guns”. The downside of this is the good LEO’s that would suffer for it.

  2. avatar kjd33 says:

    Please, PLEASE would some police department insist on using “smart guns” and ONLY “smart guns”. They could show us how awesome they are. Lead by example and all that.

    I won’t hold my breath.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      Screw that, since OhBummer thinks they’re so fantastic, the SS should be using only these.

      1. avatar Omer Baker says:

        ^^^THIS!!! For the win!

        1. avatar Amok! says:

          +1

        2. avatar Clay says:

          +another 1

  3. avatar Rob Aught says:

    1. Guns are extremely safe. It takes several acts of idiocy and neglect of at least 3 of the 4 laws to cause a fatal accident. Guns do not “go off” and can be dropped, run over, and have all kinds of things done to them without any concern it will discharge.

    2. If anything has made guns less safe it is the ignorance of firearm usage pushed by the antis. There was a time when most people understood basic firearms handling and safety. If you want to scare me, give a gun to someone who has never handled one before. 30 years ago you could assume they knew the basics and would do no harm, today I have no such confidence.

  4. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I’m not certain I am reading that correctly. Is she saying the idiotic concepts she espouses should be required for all POLICE DEPARTMENTS? Can that be correct? Because I would agree completely. Police do not have a constitutional right to carry anything, the department can specify whatever they like, including no weapon at all. Try to foist this crap off on the police, first, after it is successful for a few decades the rest of us can decide if it is worth the extra cost to us.

    1. avatar kjd33 says:

      Criminals already have gadgets that unlock car doors with the push of a button. I bet they’re illegal too. How quickly do you think they’d come up with a device that disables “smart guns” with the push of a button. Maybe they’ll make such devices illegal..

    2. avatar Gary McClenny says:

      She is not advocating that police carry them, only that departments insist that they be made for us to carry. You know, because all police are highly trained and we are idiots.

    3. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Until the Rank and File in said Departments rebels against their Management. Back to “dumb guns” for them.

  5. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Hey, here’s a couple of ideas off the top of my head to improve Chicago:

    1. Elect someone who has a scintilla of personal integrity.

    2. Quit spending money that you don’t have, and will never have.

    3. Fire the feckless idiot that is currently the chief of police.

    Right there, I’ve vastly improved Chicago, and I didn’t need to use the word “gun” once. But let’s mention guns whilst I’m at it. If I wanted to address the crime situation, I’d allow law-abiding citizens to tool up, CCW, carry in the home, etc.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Mrs O’Leary and her cow had the right idea. Fire is a sanitizing agent. But the fire wasn’t hot enough.

      Fortunately Obumster is working to give the Iranians Big Fire. Perhaps that will work.

      1. avatar jake from detroit says:

        Why would BO want the Iranians to have nuclear weapons?

        1. avatar Bob says:

          Because oppressors need a boogeyman man to frighten the sheep into giving them more control?

        2. avatar tedthecanuck says:

          Because Obama will do anything to avoid a conflict with anyone, regardless of the future cost to the region or the US itself. All wars and interventions are bad and only solidify America’s status as the Grand Imperialist, dontchaknow?

        3. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          It’s not that he specifically wants them to have nuclear weapons. What he believes is that the Iranians are the preferred regional power, since they have the ability to exert significant control over the Shia, and the Sunni have for so long been fractured beyond the ability to act together.

          He also seems to hope that if we show Iran that we are willing to be a partner in their rise, or at the least that he can keep Congress from holding them back any longer, then despite all the rhetoric about ‘death to America,’ and ‘death to Israel,’ they will be more likely to view us as uneasy equals than bitter enemies. This is where I go from polite disagreement to utter disgust.

          About the only positive thing you could salvage from Iran getting the bomb is that historically, after any nation acquires nuclear weapons, they seem to realize that the cost of a big enough mistake has now risen to total annihilation. This leads to a degree of stability. Personally, I don’t believe you can count on the same degree of stability where state sponsors of terrorism and fundamentalist Islam are involved.

        4. avatar jake from detroit says:

          I like your mindset, Hasdrubal. Interesting angles. Excellent third paragraph. It’s a heavy bet if that’s what they are planning on Iran discovering when they get the bomb. It doesn’t flesh out: if we thought the bomb would make nations sober up and act their age, I don’t think we’d be so reluctant to give it to them.

        5. avatar jkl; says:

          “Why would BO want the Iranians to have nuclear weapons?”

          Because ‘it isn’t fair’ that only the superpowers have fission-fusion weapons.

        6. avatar doesky2 says:

          Because his foreign policies are a wreck and he wants a “deal” so that he can try to repair his legacy by saying he “opened up Iran” like Nixon opened up China. Yes he’s that vain. He doesn’t care if the Iranians get a bomb, it’s his legacy he wants polished. He’s confident that if this deal results in Iran blowing up half the world, the left will promptly blame Bush for it.

          It’s really that simple.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      Certainly no objection to law-abiding citizens carrying guns. However, we should not expect much change in the homicide statistics from even 100% saturation in carrying by the law-abiding.
      The evidence is that something like 90% of the perpetrators and 90% of the victims of homicide are inner-city minorities with criminal records. If these statistics are in the ball-park then the victims are mostly prohibited persons or under-age (i.e., not old enough to be eligible for carry permits even if they have not lost their 2A rights). Some victims are simply accidentally in cross-fire; even if these were eligible to carry, it’s unlikely that self-defense would have saved them.
      Likewise with accidents. I just heard John Lott say that many accidents occur in a context of illegal gun ownership; something that seems intuitively correct.
      I think we need clearer data on the foregoing. Homicides by ZIP-code and demographics for ZIP-codes. Criminal background of victims and perpetrators/suspects.
      Likewise for suicides. Just how many cases of suicides can we say that: “But for the presence of a gun, this person would not have impulsively killed himself”? Maybe for a young teen this might be so. At the other end of the spectrum, if the suicide was a medical professional it’s hard to make the case that he wouldn’t have found a substitute method.

    3. avatar Sian says:

      Personal Integrity is a trait that makes one unelectable in the windy city.

  6. avatar Russ in AK says:

    Gun manufacturers would have to listen, when threatened with a loss of business? From Chicago?

    Give me a break.

    I’ll bet Fort Smith, Arkansas dumps more dollars into the firearms industry every year than all of Cook County, Illinois. That’s hardly a “threat.”

  7. avatar Defens says:

    What a bunch of hypocrites – “You’ll only get business from us if you cowtow to our ‘safety’ requirements.” But of course the police will instantly carve out an exception for themselves.

    I actually prefer the stance of companies like Barrett – “We’ll only do business with you when you stop infringing citizens rights.”

    1. avatar Chuck in IL says:

      My thoughts exactly.

  8. avatar George says:

    I’m going to write an article about particle physics and space travel. Don’t know a thing about it, but that no longer seems to be important.

  9. avatar Another Robert says:

    The statement is kind of vague–no doubt purposely so. But if what they meant to say is that the Chicago PD should “lead by example” and only use guns fitted with that “state of the art” safety technology themselves, then I’m all for it. I kind of doubt that’s the case, seeing as how they reference other departments that are supposedly already making the stand they are asking CPD to take.

  10. avatar Alex Peterson says:

    Thousands? Might want to check the statistics on that claim.

  11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Arm Chicago police with nothing but “smart” guns? Sure, go right ahead! (Let us know how that works out for you.)

    P.S. deaths due to accidental (negligent) firearms discharges are not in the thousands annually. The number in 2013, per the CDC, was 505 – or approximately 0.1% of the number of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents (same for poisoning), a little more than 10% of the number of deaths due to drowning, etc.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      Do you mean “authorized journalists” made up statistics about such an important and polarizing subject as our second Amendment rights?

      Oh, wait aminute, they included murder by stolen gun as a gun “accident”.

      Woo! That was close, I was going to start to question the integrity of those that should be the only ones allowed to broadcast the “Pravda” oh, I meant the truth; which should be, you know, our Authorized Journalists.

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      Do you mean “authorized journalists” made up statistics about such an important and polarizing subject that could effect our second Amendment rights?

      Oh, wait aminute, they included murder by stolen gun as a gun “accident”.

      Woo! That was close, I was going to start to question the integrity of those that should be the only ones allowed to broadcast the “Pravda” oh, I meant the truth; which should be our Authorized Journalists.

  12. avatar Mike in NC says:

    LE can’t be much of a market compared to the non-LE civilian sales. I’ve heard 800k as a total number of LE at all levels in the US and if for some reason all of these were to replace all firearms (assuming one sidearm and one long gun: rifle or shotgun) at once it would represent less than two months of sales (based on recent years’ NICS) to the general public.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      That’s what I was thinking.

      This part,

      “You will only get future business from us if you agree to use state-of-the-art gun safety systems,” manufacturers would have to listen. “

      is an idiotic joke. It shows the fundamental Statist viewpoint and the flaw therein.

      Manufacturers most certainly would not “have to listen.” Manufacturers can tell CPD to go pound sand, and good luck with their LE mission unarmed in Chicago.

      What total nonsense. These anti-gun people really, really simply have no clue what they are even saying half the time. On the one hand, it shows how weak their position is, but on the other, it does sometimes make it difficult to argue the point. When the point is SO illogical and filled with non-sense, it can be hard to pin down the flaw.

      In this case, I do believe the fallacy is (or contains) a Begging the Question. It’s assumed that police procurement dictates manufacturer business decisions, then that premise is used to conclude that police procurement policies will dictate manufacturer business decisions.

      Utter nonsense.

  13. avatar pun&gun says:

    Typical of our culture, wanting some gadget or device to take the work out of something. The easy way out never works as well as the way in which you man up and deal with it on your own. Take responsibility, get over yourself, and promote learning safe behavior. Stop relying on gadgets that won’t always be there and won’t always work.

  14. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “Gun safety technology is being developed that makes it impossible only marginally more difficult for anyone but the owner of the gun to use that weapon…”

    If she’s talking about stolen guns, then I fixed it for her. A stolen “smart” gun is only a few minutes with a mechanically-inclined person away from having the “smart” bits disabled or removed and returning to “dumb” gun status. It’s still a mechanical object. Remove the electronics, perhaps replace a couple of pieces of the trigger assembly, and you’re back in business. People build guns from plumbing parts in prison. You think someone with access to a Home Depot couldn’t find a way to dumb-ify a “smart” gun?

    If she’s talking about people’s own guns being used against them or someone unauthorized (like a kid) getting someone’s gun and accidentally shooting themselves, I’ll bet there aren’t more than a dozen such cases a year in Chicago. The vast majority of “gun deaths” in Chicago are gang crimes, a problem that all the gun control laws in the world won’t solve.

  15. avatar Paul says:

    I have a red dot and some lasers that I do not use because it is a given that the batteries will fail even when just practicing. And each one uses different batteries. Considering all, I am not bad with iron sights and I don’t have to worry about the batteries.

    The nanny state has become seriously insane. Pretty soon it will demand that people be microchipped like dogs in the name of gun safety, driving safety, proper eating habits (see that other post about Scotland) and “safety for the children” in general. To be monitored remotely by drone and computer. Welcome to 1984. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are laughing in their graves.

  16. avatar Mk10108 says:

    A pretty face, nice doo, a gun and a mans watch. Relaying what the citizens should do. That genie is never going back in the bottle.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The photo is an Armatix marketing shot, and the watch is necessary to activate the gun. In fact, the watch must be within 10 inches of the gun to work.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        And The reason you practice weak hand is the the shooting hand holding the gun is some times shot by the bad guy if there is return fire. Or the watch might get shot and broken as a consequence.

        Oops. Hey, at least if it’s an all metal gun, maybe a Desert Eagle, you can use it as a club and beat them to death with it.

  17. avatar Newshawk says:

    Gee, I wonder where Cook County is going to get their firearms from, now that they will only deal with manufacturers that use “state-of-the-art gun safety systems”. (Of course, most firearms manufacturers are already using state of the art safety systems, but they are mechanical systems.)

  18. avatar Bob says:

    Accident…not equal to…violence.

    If I fall down my steps, is that step violence? Of course it isn’t. Same thing applies to firearms.

    Try doing some “reporting” vs “opinionating”.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      End staircase (or is it handrail) violence now! Ban the thing that goes up as well as down!!

  19. avatar Mike in NC says:

    The hard-core anti’s don’t want this these electronic measures for safety, they want them because they are weak technologies which can and will be manipulated if deployed in large numbers. Disable all smart-guns in the city at the flip of a switch? To them it’s a feature, not a bug. I would be very interested to know if these electronic systems continue to function correctly in some of the key-fob dead-zones I’ve read about recently, which were coincidentally in Chicago.

  20. avatar SteveH says:

    If this sort of technology really existed I would gladly buy it and would gladly pay a premium for it.

    I would also like to buy a hoverboard and a Mr. Fusion-powered time machine.

  21. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “Thousands of Americans — die each year because of accidents with guns.”

    That is an utter and complete lie. If you go to the Centers for Disease Control and look up causes of accidental deaths, you will find that less than 600 people died in the U.S. last year (or the latest year for which data is available) due to accidental gunshot wounds.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Hmmm.

      Is that’s how they get “no DGU’s, ever”? They count DGU’s as ‘accidents’?

      That would fit their mindset. After all, if a home invader or street thug gets shot committing a violent felony against an innocent person, that certainly is an “accident.” It’s preventable, too, via civilian disarmament.

  22. avatar Clark45 says:

    As a couple other commenters have pointed out, the number of people that die from firearms accidents each year is not in the thousands. Depending on where I look, the number is around 500 or 600. The number of people that die each year (as pointed out in another TTAG article, & verified by me) from just falling down is around 12,000! What the saying? You can have your own opinion, but not your own “facts,” or something like that.

    The Trib is so full of inaccurate info, no one I know (I’m in Ill-Annoy) even bothers with it, except maybe for sports scores. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the sheeple that read it will never know the truth. When formerly trustworthy news outlets publish lies the public will just accept those lies as facts.

    Maybe the public would be better served if the Trib published tips on how to not fall down… yeah, I know – ain’t gonna happen.

  23. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Being a retired EE, I’ve just come up with a great idea for a “smart gun:”

    I want to develop a gun that detects donut crumbs, sugar glazing and coffee on the hands of the operator. If such substances are detected, the gun will not fire.

    And I’d give this technology away for free to all gun gun companies. Just because I like dogs.

    1. avatar franklin the turtle says:

      that may work……*looks into the distance deep in thought*…yup it’ll work. besides it’s for the puppies

  24. avatar Static NAT says:

    ” … along with a much more vigorous crackdown on rogue gun dealers who sell weapons that end up at crime scenes” … How are you going to do that? If you have a record of the dealer who sold the guns, then it is obvioulsy a legal transaction from a dealer who isn’t rogue. This person doesn’t understand the context that she is making demands about.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      You are, of course, correct.

      But facts don’t matter here, feelings do. (insert the lyrics of the classic by Gemini from the 70’s).

      This is why I tell people who want to become really good at arguing RKBA issues that they really need to either get into a toe-to-toe debate with some of these people (face to face, I mean) or at least observe one. Once you do, you’ll realize that with many of them, the facts will never matter. Never.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        The rabid Anti is either:
        – purely operating out of feelings/phobias; or,
        – a statist
        In either case, it’s a total waste of time to talk to them. Just ask: “Do you already know everything you think you need to know to come to a conclusion about guns?” If they answer yes, then you have nothing to offer them.
        We need to think exclusively about communicating with those who are not yet committed; or, who are merely sympathetic to the Antis’ arguments. These people will be open to facts and will be persuadable. We need to hone our message to the RIGHT audience, not the pointless audience.

  25. avatar Steve says:

    Ahhhh…The infamous “rouge” gun dealer……

    1. avatar James69 says:

      who is very dangerous!

  26. avatar Jiz says:

    Thousands die from guns each year?! How many die each year from cars or from doctors? Hospitals are vary dangerous places latest study says (Journal of Patient Safety) 210k – 420k die each year from hospitals.
    If it’s really about safety and saving peoples lives then these gun control groups really should focus efforts on the biggest offenders first right?

    Moms demand action against Heart disease?
    Mayors against illegal motor vehicles
    The Brady campaign for hospital patients right to safe and effective health care

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Absolutely valid points. How many deaths/injuries/damaged-property incidents are attributable to unlicensed or un-insured drivers? How many to drivers who are DWTexting?

      The more I think about it, the more I think we need to build an in-depth picture of the victims and perpetrators of gun homicides and accidents.

      Suicide is the biggest category of death. Who kills himself with a gun? Are suicides the kinds of people who would have a hard time figuring out how to kill himself by some other means? If a suicide is a medical professional (doctor, dentist, nurse, pharmacist) then it seems to me reasonable that he would easily find an alternate means. If he is elderly he is presumably knowledgeable enough to find drugs, poisons, a tall building/bridge, etc. If he is in some mechanical profession (mechanical engineer, carpenter, plumber) he ought to be able to work-out an alternate means. How many gun suicides fit some profile of a really impulsive act by someone unlikely to work-out an alternate means?

      Homicide is second. How many of these are victims with a criminal background or resident in a high-crime area? (We always know who the victim was.) In either such case, what is the likelihood that disarming a 2A-able person is going to prevent the death of such a victim?
      We can’t hope to identify 100% of the perpetrators of homicides; but we can expect to identify a representative sample of perpetrators. What are their profiles? How many were 2A-able? Suppose 90% were prohibited-persons; in that case, we ought to be enforcing the felon-in-posession laws rather than making law-abiding gun owners felons. In domestic-homicide cases, how many perpetrators were identifiable as violent long before the homicide incident? In any such case, how can we be confident that a dis-armed perpetrator wouldn’t have used a blunt/sharp object to kill?
      Finally, accidents. Who are the victims; who caused the accidents? Are the children who are victims of gun accidents graduates of the Eddie Eagle program? Or, are they resident in single-parent households where the adults in the homes are untrained or illegal gun owners? Are the teenagers trained in safe gun usage? Or, are they the product of single-parent households where the adults are likewise untrained or illegal gun owners?

      From the facts we know, and our intuition about the probable details, it seems highly probable that most of the deaths and injuries from guns are NOT going to be mitigated by more intense regulation of NRA members. If we develop a far richer understanding of the demographics and context of actual suicides/homicides/accidents it should become apparent to the objective voter that effective gun-control really means violent-predator control.

  27. avatar CT Resident says:

    The lead in shows the bias and weak thinking.

    “Reduce gun violence by insisting on gun safety.”

    The first statement is biased and unreasoned.

    They are equating “gun safety” with “gun violence” which should be self evident that they are not the same thing. Accidents are not violence, and violence is not accidental.

    The mentality of focusing on the symptoms of problems rather than get to the root causes will guarantee that we will forever have problems.

  28. avatar John L. says:

    So, according to Wikipedia, there are about 765k sworn personnel in the US right now. If each one gets a new gun every 3 years, say, the LEO market is around 250k handguns per year. (Likely a high estimate.)

    Depending on the source, there are around 10M new guns sold in the US each year. Let’s say only a quarter of them are handguns. (Likely a low estimate.)

    So at best, the LEO market is about 10% of the total US gun sales per year. Good luck cowing the makers with that market share, guys. Especially as some companies are already demonstrating their willingness to give that much up by not retooling for CA’s idiotic microstamping requirements.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      And to say nothing of the fact that LE sales are heavily discounted due to volume sales–and free advertising for the manufacturer. Thus, in real dollars, the LE market share is even smaller.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Yup. Because, starting with Glock, American gun marketing started down a road of “XYZ bunch of government employees carries this pistol, you should too! Because they’re elite!”

        And you could insert “FBI,” NYPD” or “SEALs” for “XYZ.”

        From my perspective, every gun made for any government agency is probably not something I’d prefer to own, mostly because government agencies’ buying policies hew to the “lowest cost bidder,” and extra-legal backroom deals, neither of which are indications of quality.

        These days it seems every gun company making cheez-whiz pistols wants to duplicate Glock’s dubious sales ethics and policies in order to get their products into LE/military hands. It is a tedious problem in the gun industry.

    2. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      The gunmakers getting out of CAs market are still in the LE market. They can sell off roster guns to the police- both for duty and personal weapons. What they’ve chosen to do is to stop selling to other civilians, the folks who can only buy weapons that are on the approved roster. So– they’re giving up what you claim is 90% of the market but staying in the 10%— the issue is staying in the 10% doesn’t cost them anything because they don’t have to go through any additional testing or approval process. Staying in the 90% of the market does cost them something more- they have to go through the hassle/time/cost to get approval (and if it’s got a standard capacity of more than 10 rounds, redesign or design and manufacture of 10 round capability and magazines.)

      1. avatar John L. says:

        The point isn’t that they’re willing to still sell to those in CA who can buy their pistols.

        The point is that at least several major manufacturers have already refused to modify their designs to accommodate around 10% of the market as a whole. (Going off CA being about 10% of the US populatipn.) And those are simply mechanical changes … as opposed to completely new electro+mechanical designs like “smart” guns.

  29. avatar Chuck in IL says:

    Reduce gun accidents? Make sure Eddie the Eagle is in every elementary school in Chicago. Teach gun safety and familiarize children with guns. problem solved. Will it happen? No, because that is not their real goal.

  30. avatar Sian says:

    OK Sure.

    The only way ANYONE is going to accept smartguns is if LE takes the lead, so why not? I’m sure the brave men and women of the blue line will be happy to put their lives at risk with untested and unreliable tech.

  31. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    ALL the comments of Cook county being Chicago show a gross lack of knowledge. I live in Cook co, and my city is actually pretty good-I can own pretty anything that someone in southern Illinois can have-AR’s, AK”sand 30 round magazines. I wish some idiot internet gun sellers got that tidbit of information. Chicago sucks and always will…

  32. avatar FelixD says:

    For what its worth, the Chicago Police Department does not issue uniforms or guns to police officers. Recruits have to provide them out of pocket when they enter the academy. I wonder how much this crap costs?

    1. avatar P says:

      I was going to say the same thing. So who exactly does the Trib think CPD would be buying these smart guns for? I’d love to see a whole mess of officers fail to certify with it because the guns failed.

  33. avatar BlueBronco says:

    Too bad these faux journalists have no research skills. They could do a little research looking at the FBI UCR and CDC data and see they are off by a lot on the accidental death schtick. So much so that they are flat liars.

  34. avatar ern says:

    “4 big ideas to improve Chicago:”
    1. Grow a set.
    2. Improve law enforcement.
    3. Send people to prison for committing crimes.
    4. Stop it with the “political correctness.”

    Only a start, many other things to do.

    1. avatar TStew says:

      You forgot “stop voting for Democrats” and “fire that POS thug of a police chief” your reply. Though I suppose in Chicago it doesn’t much matter who votes for whom…

  35. “is being developed”

    Note future tense.

    Call us when it becomes past tense.

  36. avatar doesky2 says:

    The Left believes this sheet because they are happily cocooned ina sea of Leftism that is our current day media, TV, movies,art, music, theater, and universities. A leftist can live their entire life and not be subjected to a conservative opinion or argument. In contrast, folks on the right are subjected to leftist ideology 24/7/365 and from 360 degrees. Now which group do you has a better grasp of reality?

  37. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Why is it gun owners are being held responsible for the deliberate actions of criminals? Why do I feel like a broken record?

  38. avatar Mike says:

    This goes to prove the stupidity of gun grabbers. That this tech will either be defeated by a teenage hacker, the watch is stolen along with the gun, or left near the gun and found along with it by curious kids hasn’t crossed their pea brains is hilarious. This doesn’t even take into account that these firearms present a risk to the operator that it won’t work when needed either by blocking the signal, bad tech, dead batteries or a watch left in the other room.

    As for the PDs that attempt to pull this manuever, I wonder how they’ll fare when all the legit manufacturers just tell them to find someone else to provide them guns at near cost and they’re left with no choices, I doubt the rank and file will be happy with their politically appointed bosses for risking their lives on a political game such as they’re proposing.

  39. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I’m confused….’ they’ can stand up to the gun lobby and make a difference? Or the gun lobby is so powerful it can shape the legal landscape against’common sense.’

  40. avatar cockatoo says:

    The Trib’s comments are most welcome. When Law Enforcement squawks at the reality of working with such sketchy, politically motivated, unproven, unreliable gear, maybe the antis will listen. Maybe, just maybe, the fact that the cops have every reason to want nothing to do with it might allow a sliver of understanding through about how dumb and unworkable this suggestion was in the first place.
    But I won’t hold my breath.

  41. avatar John Franco says:

    Well I think the City of Chicago should make an ultimatum like that to the gun manufacturers. After they do the gun manufacturers should flat out refuse, then unitedly refuse to sell firearms to the city of chicago police force. Chicago police can then hit the streets armed with slingshots, which should be more than enough firepower in all those “gun free zones” they have in chicago.

  42. avatar Paladin says:

    Methinks they need to check their stats. In 2010 the CDC reported only ~600 fatalities by unintentional discharge of a firearm. I’m pretty sure 600 is not thousands.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      It is in the version of “math education” that’s apparently been in use past two (at least) generations.

      I’m not blasting that they are saying this so much as I am blasting that people hear it, believe it and defend it when it is called out.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email