Technical solution to gun control

The common characteristic of all gun violence is that nobody but the shooter agrees with the shooter's actions.  My proposal exploits that characteristic by requiring cosigners shortly before any gun can be fired.  See below for my proposed solution.
 
My understanding of the 2nd Amendment
 
Text of the Amendment:
 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
 
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting for food.  It is about killing people.
 
The "well regulated militia" clause is not intended to limit arms to a militia controlled by the government.  The clause is an attempt to excuse and explain what the framers recognized would be a controversial provision, that all citizens should be permitted to own weapons.
 
The framers had just completed a successful rebellion against what had been their own government.  They were in the process of creating a new and untested government.  They wanted to guarantee that, should the new government become oppressive, another rebellion would be possible.  That guarantee would discourage the new government from becoming oppressive.
 
Their concern was for the survival of society.  Occasional death of individuals caused by armed criminals, was a secondary issue.  Perhaps in those days, the untamed frontier absorbed the hostility of the gun crazies.
 
In order for gun ownership to succeed in restraining the excesses of government, and in providing a remedy of last resort against an oppressive government, the guns would have to be militarily significant.  At that time, there were no automatic weapons, or weapons of mass destruction.
 
Modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment should be clear: it is universally permissive.
 
But changes in society and advances in technology raise legitimate questions about whether a new amendment to the Constitution is needed, to replace the 2nd Amendment.  If so, a new amendment could be a proper solution to contemporary issues.  Current political wrangling relies on wishful thinking as a substitute for strict construction.
 
Individual deaths and wounds from illegal use of firearms, are very significant.  How much individual suffering should we tolerate, in order to safeguard society as a whole from government excess?
 
What limits should we place on the military effectiveness of arms permitted to private citizens?  Automatic weapons?  Weapons of mass destruction?  If citizens cannot compete militarily against an oppressive government, why allow citizens arms at all?  Disallowing private arms would reduce gun crimes.  Modern technology enables other forms of rebellion, such as computer attack, that were not envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
 
Weaknesses of previous gun protocols
 
Protocol:  Only government owns guns.  Problem:  Tyranny cannot be overthrown.  Examples:  Chile under Pinochet, North Korea under Kim dynasty.
 
Protocol:  Everyone owns guns  Problem:  Anarchy.  Examples:  American old west, Mexican drug cartels.
 
Protocol:  Some groups own guns, some are forbidden.  Problem:  Victimization of forbidden groups.  Examples:  Conquistadores in South America.  Nazi Germany and Jews.
 
Protocol:  Mental stability required for gun ownership.  Problem:  Government classifies political dissidents as unstable.  Example:  Stalin put dissidents into mental hospitals.
 
Nonlethal alternative for citizen self defense
 
Use any paintball gun.  Instead of being filled with paint, the balls are filled with fast drying wood glue.  When dry, the glue is difficult to remove.  Assailants are easier to identify, deterring assault.  Requires the manufacture of glue-filled balls.  Safer than tasers, but slower to take effect.  Supplements pepper spray, longer lasting.
 
Yahoo search results for:    paintball law court
 
Technical solution
 
Redesign guns.  Outlaw guns that do not meet new design standards.  During a transition period, promote a free exchange of an old design gun for a new design gun.
 
Guns for hunting:  Retain double barrel shotguns.  Restrict rifles to single shot only, manual reloading between shots.  No other hunting guns.  Hunters will have to be more careful in choosing their targets and in aiming.
 
Guns for military, police, citizen self defense:  Most armed robberies are committed by small groups of criminals.  Many other gun crimes are committed by isolated deranged individuals, either permanently deranged or temporarily deranged by immediate circumstances.  Gang violence is discussed later.  Design guns so that simultaneous action by 10 people is required to activate each gun, impossible to modify guns to defeat this requirement.  Activation lasts for a specified time duration, not to exceed 25 hours.  When the specified time has elapsed, guns automatically deactivate themselves.  Ordinary criminals and isolated deranged individuals will be unable to find 10 people willing to assist in activating their guns.  Military and police can meet once a day at a regularly scheduled time to activate their guns.  That is why the deactivation time limit is 25 hours instead of 24 hours, to allow a little slack in the schedule for reactivating the guns.  Political dissidents and criminal gangs can do the same.  The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect political dissidents.  Make activation require and retain biometric identification of all participants, all participants become criminally liable for any consequences of activation.  That deters criminal gangs.  With fewer gun crimes, there will be less need for citizen home defense guns.  Borrowing money requires cosigners, so also should using a gun.  This solution will not stop large entrenched criminal gangs such as the Mexican drug cartels, but it will help in most situations.  It is time for guns to enter the electronic age.  Modern electronics are capable and cheap, but overall the solution is not cheap.  How much is society willing to spend in order to finally solve the problem?
 
Implementation details
 
1.  To reduce the chance that some of the 10 participants in activating a gun are acting under duress, the gun is inactive during the activation process.
 
2.  The owner of a gun being activated, must be one of the participants.  Within 25 hours after a gun is stolen, it becomes useless to the thief.
 
3.  Recall of old design guns can be expedited by designing the new guns to use new caliber ammunition, and by prohibiting manufacture or sale of old caliber ammunition.
 
4.  Beware of hidden code in the implementation.  We do not want a private company or a computer hacker or even a national government ultimately deciding who may or may not fire guns.  I suggest an international software certification board.
 
Bells & whistles
 
1.  A grip sensor that starts video recording.  The gun will not fire if not recording.  Covering the video camera or microphone, stops recording.  How to deal with gun use at night?  The gun still has a laser target finder that should record.
 
2.  Wireless communication to the cloud.  Not always possible, depending on location.
 
E-mail discussion
 
----- Original Message -----
From: (redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: technical solution to gun control

Daniel,

Thanks. Actually the original Second Amendment militia was a state controlled organization composed of citizens. Every state has a militia law that defined who was a member and prescribed what sorts of arms were required. You could be penalized for not reporting to muster and guns were subject to inspection. Most states disarmed individuals who refused to swear an oath supporting the new state constitutions.

I agree we need to make use of every technological tool. What do you think of biometric gun safe technology?

Regards,

SC
 
Dan Ross' comments after e-mail discussion ended:  If the interpretation is so straightforward, why is there controversy among 2nd Amendment experts?
 
----- Original Message -----
To: (redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: technical solution to gun control

I am unaware that it exists already.  Does it?  Do you have a link?
 
----- Original Message -----
From: (redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: technical solution to gun control

Daniel,

Look at any  hunting store  or even amazon and you will see a ton.

SC
 
----- Original Message -----
To: (redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: technical solution to gun control

I did an Internet search on:    biometric gun safe    as 3 separate words, so that word order is immaterial.  What was returned was links to ads for actual safes.  I had seen them advertized before, but dismissed them as irrelevant.  They are effective for keeping children away from guns, but that is about all.  Any thief with either a sledge hammer or an electric grinder or an electric reciprocating saw could access the contents of any of the advertized safes.
 
The safes do not address the main concerns that I wrote about.  How to stop deranged individuals.  How to stop armed robbers.  How to stop gun thieves.  A system that is effective against these threats would end gun violence experienced in the USA.  My proposal would protect political dissent, discouraging political oppression.  Existing arguments about the 2nd Amendment champion one or another of the protocols that I wrote about, risking creating a failed state similar to one of the examples that I listed.
 
The fundamental problem of current gun design is that the firing mechanism is mechanical.  It is subject to modification by a competent tinkerer, to defeat any protections that the manufacturer provided.  I envision an all-electronic firing mechanism, encapsulated or potted in such a way that the firing mechanism cannot be separated from the protections without breaking the entire unit.
 
The protections that I propose are:  (1) Require enough cosigners so that a deranged individual or a small group of armed robbers could not activate guns.  Even in criminal gangs, there is not sufficient mutual trust for gang members to cosign activating other members' guns.  (2) Require the gun owner to participate in activating his gun.  Inactive guns would be useless to thieves.  (3) Gather and retain biometric information about the activators and videotape gun use, so that evidence of criminal use is available to law enforcement officials.  (4) Ensure that the participants in gun activation are not under duress.
 
Radio conversation
 
On 1/15/2013, my local radio station hosted Senator Harry Reid discussing a variety of issues and accepting phone-in questions and comments.  I spoke with Sen. Reid for about 45 seconds.  He objected to the idea of single shot hunting rifles.  He said that it had been a long time since he went hunting, but that he usually required more shots.  These are my thoughts after that conversation.
 
1.  If the target is missed completely on the 1st shot, will there be an opportunity for a 2nd shot?  If the target is hit but not killed by the 1st shot, will there be time to reload for a 2nd shot?
 
2.  I do not know whether Sen. Reid used a laser aiming device.
 
3.  Here are some ideas to increase the probability of a kill on the 1st shot.  Everything operates under control of a computer inside the rifle.  Range.  Let us call the standard laser aiming device, the "aiming laser".  Attach a 2nd laser to the rifle, on a metal arm so that the 2nd laser is about 1 ft. to the right of the rifle barrel.  Call it the "ranging laser".  The aiming laser customarily is red.  The ranging laser must be a differing color, say green.  Initially both lasers are parallel, but the aiming laser is on and the ranging laser is off.  When the hunter has the aiming laser pointing at the desired spot on the target, the hunter presses a button (or equivalent) that turns on the ranging laser.  The ranging laser rotates small fractions of a degree around a vertical axis, until both lasers point at the same spot.  This can be detected electronically using camera technology, and a half silvered mirror mounted at 45 degrees inside the rifle scope.  The range is computed from the angle that the ranging laser rotated.  Drop.  Drop is calculated from the range and from known characteristics of the rifle and ammunition.  Both lasers are rotated down to compensate for drop, causing the hunter to raise the rifle slightly to stay on target.  Windage.  If the wind is gusting, no computer help is possible.  If the wind is steady, the hunter can enter wind speed and direction into the computer before aiming.  The computer can calculate windage from wind speed and direction, and from range.  Both lasers are rotated to compensate for windage.  All the adjustments happen very quickly, compared with human or animal reaction times.  Gusting wind requires a 2-shot rifle.  The 1st shot, with tracer ammunition, determines windage, a brief delay for re-aiming, then the 2nd shot to kill ... if the target has not bolted away already.  (Thank you M.A.C.).
 
Dan Ross' observations:  Unnecessary concern?  It can happen here.  We have had slavery, racial segregation, racial and ethnic prejudice, some Presidential assassinations, and (depending on your political outlook) recent wars in which our allies were just as rotten as our enemies, especially Vietnam, and unnecessary recent wars, especially Grenada (Reagan) and Iraq (George W. Bush).
 
Links
 
https://sites.google.com/site/danielvonzzyzxross/technical-solution-to-gun-control  relevant page on my Web site, contains this same message
 
 
http://mags.acm.org/communications/201303/?CFID=284473044&CFTOKEN=90440469#pg37  Jeff Johnson, Communications of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), March 2013, page 35 (despite the link showing page 37); access to this article may require ACM membership or a nominal fee
 
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/02/28/smart-gun-technology  Public Radio International (PRI) program Here and Now, Feb. 28, 2013
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/smart-guns_n_2562091.html  Adam Geller, Huffington Post, Jan. 27, 2013