Do Americans want to buy 'smart' guns?

January 30, 2017 by Lacey Wallace, The Conversation

Recently legislators and special interest groups have pushed for greater availability of "smart" guns as a safety and crime-reduction tool. Then-President Barack Obama called for more research into "smart" gun technology in January 2016, and that April issued a memorandum calling for government-led research into smart guns as well as potential use by some federal agencies.

"Smart gun" refers to firearms that include some sort of safety device designed to make sure that the gun can be fired only by an authorized user. These safety devices include fingerprint recognition, wearable "tags" that a gun can recognize and other similar features. Smart guns are not yet widely available on the market.

They are not a new concept. In the 1970s, Magna-Trigger marketed a magnetic add-on feature for revolvers. This prevented the gun from firing unless the user was wearing a specially designed magnetic ring. Due to controversy and politics, however, smart guns have been very slow to come to market. Smart gun manufacturers and gun retailers have faced boycotts and protests in years past.

But would Americans actually buy smart guns?

My own research focuses heavily on gun purchasing and teen gun carrying. Previous research on Americans' willingness to purchase smart guns has found mixed results. So I set out to try to better understand how Americans feel about smart guns and why they might feel that way.

Past research doesn't tell much

There isn't very much research about attitudes toward smart guns, and the limited research that does exist has drawn different conclusions.

For instance, one study in 2015 by Julia Wolfson at Johns Hopkins and colleagues at Harvard and Northeastern University asked respondents about their willingness to purchase a "childproof" gun. Results showed that most Americans were willing to buy this type of gun, with high interest from people self-identifying as liberals, people who do not currently own guns and those with children in the home.

Another study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) in 2013 asked respondents a similar question, but found that Americans were largely against purchasing smart firearms.

So why did these studies find such different results?

Past research has struggled with a number of problems. I examined existing studies as part of my own research, and found that none specifically ask whether a person would choose a smart gun or a traditional firearm if both were available. Instead, most just ask whether individuals feel favorable toward smart guns or willing to purchase them. With such a controversial issue, there is the risk that certain groups will use question wording or sampling strategy to sway results.

I also found that the existing studies define the term smart gun very differently. Some use the term "childproof" while others do not. This was a key difference between the Wolfson and NSSF studies.

The difference in terminology makes it difficult to compare results across studies, and it may explain why results are so different. Last, existing studies often look only at a few characteristics of respondents. This makes it unclear how different subgroups of Americans might feel.

What do people really think about smart guns?

In February 2016, I conducted a nationwide web survey of 261 gun owners and 263 nonowners. My sample was located by Qualtrics, a survey and market research company.

Although my survey was not nationally representative, my sample was very similar to the U.S. population on characteristics like age, political leaning and income.

In my survey, I asked: If you were purchasing a firearm, and this [smart gun] technology were available, which type of firearm would you purchase? Respondents could choose from four answers: a smart gun; a traditional firearm; say they were unsure; or say they would never consider purchasing a firearm. To be consistent with the Wolfson study, I chose to give respondents a smart gun definition without the term "childproof."

I found that current gun owners were significantly less likely to favor smart guns over other firearms than nonowners. About 46 percent of gun owners preferred a smart gun compared to 62 percent of nonowners. Males and individuals with pro-gun attitudes were less likely to prefer smart guns to traditional firearms. Overall, males were less than half as likely as females to prefer a smart gun, and male gun owners were about a third as likely as female gun owners to prefer smart guns.

Pro-gun individuals agreed with statements like "My community would be safer if more people owned guns" or "People who own guns are more patriotic than people who do not own guns."

But not all gun owners had the same views. Gun owners who also have a history of victimization, have moderate political views or live in the Northeast were all more likely to prefer smart guns.

Education or income level, race, marital status, presence of children in the home and willingness to discuss smart guns with a doctor had no significant association with willingness to buy a smart gun over a traditional firearm.

Nonowners were much more likely to support smart guns than gun owners. However, they were also more likely to have no preference for gun type or to say they would never consider purchasing a gun.

What does this mean?

Overall, I found that gun owners and people who were more "pro-gun" were less likely to choose a smart gun over a traditional firearm. This is important because estimates suggest that a small number of Americans own most of the guns in the U.S. A 2015 unpublished survey from Harvard and Northeastern University estimated that just 3 percent of Americans owned half of the nation's guns. Other estimates suggest that gun owners today own more guns per household than they did in years past. So those likely to go out and purchase a firearm – current gun owners – may not be willing to choose a smart gun.

There is no national database of all gun owners. This means we can only estimate how many people actually own guns, and what kinds, so most estimates are based on surveys or criminal background checks. And in my own study, respondents said they felt uncomfortable sharing information about whether they owned a gun with strangers and people they did not know very well. For this reason, it is possible that individuals underreport owning a gun or how many guns they own. Without a national list of all gun owners to double-check, we rely on additional research with other samples, like federal background checks, to make sure the patterns we see are consistent.

We need more studies with larger, nationally representative samples and more detailed questions about smart guns. However, my study sheds light on how subgroups of Americans feel about the issue. Not all gun owners or nonowners feel the same way about smart guns. Support is not evenly divided by political party. American attitudes toward smart guns are complex and do not necessarily follow the patterns we might expect.

Lacey Wallace, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Pennsylvania State University

Explore further: Most Americans support smart guns, survey finds

Related Stories

Most Americans support smart guns, survey finds

January 21, 2016

Nearly 60 percent of Americans, if they buy a new handgun, are willing to purchase a smart or childproof gun—a weapon that is only operable in the hands of an authorized user—new Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public ...

With high-tech guns, users could disable remotely

May 21, 2013

A high-tech startup is wading into the gun control debate with a cellphone controller that would allow gun owners to know when their weapon is being moved—and disable it remotely.

Obama announces new steps to curb gun violence

April 29, 2016

President Barack Obama announced new steps Friday to help curb gun violence, including by identifying the requirements that "smart guns" would have to meet for law enforcement agencies to buy and use them as well as sharing ...

Recommended for you

Nuclear technology unlocks 50-million-year-old time capsules

December 11, 2017

A scientific analysis of fossilised tree resin has caused a rethink of Australia's prehistoric ecosystem, and could pave the way to recovering more preserved palaeobiological artefacts from the time of dinosaurs or prehistoric ...

Egypt archaeologists discover mummy in Luxor

December 9, 2017

Egyptian archaeologists have discovered a mummy in one of two previously unexplored tombs across the Nile from the southern city of Luxor, the antiquities ministry said Saturday.

86 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

timfromclear
4 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2017
For each gun, smart or not, one needs to consider purpose. Do they just want to shoot at the range occasionally? Carry for protection? Hunt? Collect?

Every security layer adds something that can fail at a critical moment. Batteries can die, finger print scanners can get dirty, electronics sometimes simply fail. If there's ever a wrong time for a rifle to fail, it's when you have a buck in your sights. Those who hunt or everyday carry are not likely to want smart tech. Collectors are less likely to find classic, collectible guns with smart locks.

It makes sense that non owners could see themselves at the range easier than they could see themselves carrying for personal protection. Especially potential gun owners with children would see the value in a smart gun.

The fear among gun owners is laws will REQUIRE smart locks at some point. The tech isn't very reliable. There's nothing inherently wrong with smart tech on guns, there are both benefits and drawbacks to consider.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 31, 2017
I do not trust anyone with a handgun.

Everyone else is at the mercy of whoever has the gun, and I learned to not trust those who "need" them to feel safe.
timfromclear
4 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2017
I've never had to use a gun in self defense. I don't think I ever will. I hope I'm right about that. That said, I enjoy hunting and shooting and I also conceal carry. More than just carrying, I avoid stupid people doing stupid things at stupid places. That right there will protect you better than any gun ever will.

You can choose not to trust me, that won't hurt my feelings. But as a conceal carry holder, I paid the state money from my own pocket to run a background check and prove I've never committed a violent crime. I paid the state money from my pocket to log my fingerprints and put them in a state database that's checked against every shooting making it harder to get away with crime. I also pay money on a regular basis for safety and training classes.

A person who's never committed a violent crime, is willing to voluntarily pay money to make getting away with crime more difficult and who puts their name on a state carry list is not who you need to fear.
antialias_physorg
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 31, 2017
Do Americans want to buy 'smart' guns?

I find the notion that *anyone* wants to buy a gun already pretty bizarre.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2017
I find the notion that *anyone* wants to buy a gun already pretty bizarre
I find anyone who wants to rely on fairy dust and their 'intellects' (such as they are)to protect them pretty bizarre.

The only 'smart gun' is the one that works when you need it to.

"...as well as potential use by some federal agencies..." Yeah. Lets start with the secret service detail that protects citizen obama and his family. And also the capital hill security detachment.

An admirable gesture. Im sure theyll work fine

"Nov 15, 2016 - Passerby shoots, kills motorist assaulting deputy after traffic stop. A driver who attacked a Florida sheriff's deputy Monday morning was shot and killed by a bystander who warned him to stop beating the officer, according to a report."

-Home invaders, carjackers, muggers, et al. Im seeing a few a week. How about you aa? Are you even looking?
gkam
Jan 31, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
timfromclear
5 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2017
gkam, did you miss where I said I didn't think I'd ever have to use my gun in self defense? Do you really expect to taunt me on an internet page by picking and choosing what you quote and then removing context?

I'm not scared of a fire, but I have a fire extinguisher in my house, car, and there's some at work. I've never been in a fire and I don't expect I ever will be. If there is a fire, I fully realize that I might not be able to put it out myself. I'm also careful not to daisy chain my electrical chords, I don't leave portable heaters plugged in when I'm not around, and I keep my kitchen clean. Preventative measures will do more to stop fires than fire extinguishers ever will.

Does that previous paragraph perhaps follow almost to the letter my bit about avoiding stupid people doing stupid things at stupid places being better than having a gun? Yet I still have both a fire extinguisher AND a gun =)
Thnder
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2017
" I also conceal carry"
---------------------------

Why?

Are you SCARED?

One conceal carries to keep criminals guessing and fearing average Joe's who might be carrying. As a fringe benefit, it helps not to SCARE the average sheep like yourself.
Btw Police are more likely to shoot innocents than CC permit holders who have cause to use their firearm in self defense or in defense of another. You would be better off not trusting the Police with their firearms, than to distrust CC permit holders.
Zzzzzzzz
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2017
"Btw Police are more likely to shoot innocents than CC permit holders who have cause to use their firearm in self defense or in defense of another. You would be better off not trusting the Police with their firearms, than to distrust CC permit holders."

Well said.
timfromclear
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2017
Thnder has it right about CC permit holders committing very little crime. ConcealedCarryKillers.org seeks to list every person killed by a CC holder. They list 921 deaths. Sounds like an awful lot. But digging into the numbers shows 84% (603) are suicides and 81 cases are still pending, and they include murders by other weapons like knives. Oh, and did I mention that sample is since 2007? 237, or an average of under 24 per year.

over 15,000 people are murdered every year, 24 on average by concealed carry permit holders, or 0.16%. 6% of the population holds concealed carry permits and commits 0.16% of murders according to ConcealedCarryKillers.org. Doesn't that mean by the numbers that I'm less than 1/30th as likely to kill you as a non CC holder? Guess I'll just have to live with not being trusted =)
antigoracle
3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2017
It's impossible to make a gun smart enough to put in the hands of dumb Americans.
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2017
No, Thndr. Your hubris alone makes you a bad risk.

Stay out of my neighborhood.

"You would be better off not trusting the Police with their firearms, than to distrust CC permit holders."

I'll tell my son-in-law, a police sergeant. He will be really impressed.
timfromclear
3 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2017
You know, a survey of uniformed police officers revealed that over 90% believed in gun rights and 86% believed that armed citizens made America safer. So while you're trying to tell your son in law about how horrible gun owners are.... ask him what he thinks about the issue
timfromclear
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2017
I'll bet you a fair amount of money that your son in law is a gun owner and will remain one even after he leaves the service. I guess you won't ever have him over because of your aversion to guns? Or is that just more of a keyboard warrior stance?
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2017
He leaves his guns at home. He has nothing to prove.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2017
He leaves his guns at home. He has nothing to prove.


Do you work at saying stupid stuffs? You sure put a lot of effort into it. Your "son-in-law, a police sergeant" does not carry a firearm at all when he is off duty?

What is he, a "animal control officer'? Maybe he is a "dispatcher"? Or a "parking control officer"? He certainly never has any contact with bad guys (or maybe he is dumb as a cypress stump like you.)
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2017
I bought the bullets when he took his sons out to teach them about guns. He will take the mystique out of them. I got good with a 12 gauge at age 9, and shot Expert in the service. My M-16 on full auto with a couple of magazines on the range before we went to the war was a kick.

I outgrew it all and came out of the service with the magic gone.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2017
I got good with a 12 gauge at age 9, and shot Expert in the service. My M-16 on full auto with a couple of magazines on the range before we went to the war was a kick.
I love it when you write the stuffs going for the verisimilitude. They are always GREAT BIG FUN. Lame to be sure Cher, but they are fun.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2017
Apparently you still have some growing up to do.

Go shoot something, it will make you feel powerful.
timfromclear
4 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2017
"I do not trust anyone with a handgun." That's you gkam. Is your son in law a nobody then? He's pro gun rights and you know it. He owns his own handgun too outside of what's issued by the police and you know it. He's also teaching your grandkids about firearms and they'll be pro gun too.

I don't concealed carry because I have something to prove. There's never a time when I've drawn my gun, pointed to my gun, or even referenced it while carrying outside the home. I bet you dollars to donuts that your son in law concealed carries too. Cops have a big target from every bad guy they put away. If you think your daughter's husband doesn't carry... you're living in denial.

BTW, if current and former LE and military are exempt from your "I don't trust anyone with a handgun", you know like your son in law.... keep in mind that's about half the male population.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2017
One conceal carries to keep criminals guessing and fearing average Joe's who might be carrying. As a fringe benefit, it helps not to SCARE the average sheep like yourself
George kamburoff is no sheep. Psychopaths are predators.

And they perceive their inability to feel human emotions as courage. Indeed they truly are 'fearless'. People with emotions deserve to be exploited, according to psychopaths.

But georges 'courage' is the same as the t gondii mouse who thinks it can stare down a cat.

Theyre both diseased.

Georges 'courage' got him 14-15 jobs he was not qualified for over the course of his career. He got eaten at the end of every one of them.

Truth is, if we could cure the disease george has we probably wouldn't need guns.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2017
"Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish."

"Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers.

"The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender."

-Psychopaths see armed citizens as just another hinderance to getting what they want.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2017
The folk who need to carry guns are so insecure they will not trust smart guns.

Let's face it: They carry for emotional reasons, which by itself is good reason to ban them from having deadly weapons.
bschott
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2017
The folk who need to carry guns are so insecure they will not trust smart guns.

Why wouldn't the added security of being the only person who can fire their gun appeal to an insecure person?

Let's face it: They carry for emotional reasons, which by itself is good reason to ban them from having deadly weapons.

"They" is a pretty large group of people, and "emotional reasons" covers a vast swath of justified and unjustified reasons for carrying. Timfromclear has presented a logical, responsible methodology towards owning a gun, the people you are scared of don't give a shit whether their gun is licensed or not. Fear of home invasion and the desire to protect loved ones are pretty justifiable emotions that can drive people to obtain a gun legally. Hunting comes to mind as long as it is for food and not sport. Your comment is a fear driven opinion based on the totally inaccurate image you have in your head of most people who obtain fire arms legally.
Osiris1
3 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2017
You believe you are a 'politically correct' person, so when your neighborhood experiences several home invasions without warning, you allow your husband to buy a 'gun' but insist on a 'smart gun'. He takes it home and puts the small thingy in the dresser drawer with the admonition to only use it if he 'has to' or you will take it away from him. Months go by.

One nite, you hear a noise maybe downstairs. Your husband is away on a business trip so you are alone in the house. You hear someone climbing the stairs. You go to that dresser and look for the weapon and find it. Just as the hugest biker you ever nightmared about busts the door down. He comes for you. You warn him, The crazed psycho keeps coming so you pull the trigger. Only to see a litle red light, the safety light you insisted on... just as the sexx fiend's grubby slimy fingers tighten around your throat........and the useless high tech junk falls to the floor...
gkam
Feb 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2017
You are not getting into my house.


Why that is? You give out your home address all over the interweb. You let everybody know you don't keep any firearms all over the interweb. You brag that nobody in your neighborhood keeps any firearms either because you don't allow any goobers to live there.

So why you say to anybody "You are not getting into my house."?
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2017
Go away, Ira.

Your need to "get even" with me for being real is transparent.
timfromclear
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2017
I hope no one on this thread or anywhere really has to face a home invasion. If that is a concern (I know it's a concern of mine) I hope people take measures such as locking doors, leaving lights on, perhaps installing a camera, and locking valuables in a safe. I do these things for both reasonable and emotional reasons. Whether you also choose to add a weapon of any kind in case you are home during a home invasion is completely up to you. I still hope you take measures to protect your home and I hope you understand that your reasoning for locking your door is the same as a person who has a gun
timfromclear
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2017
gkam, your own family, by your own admittance, owns guns. Your son in law has guns at home and probably carries. I hope you are willing to overcome your distrust of all gun owners for the sake of your grandkids.

I would be willing to wager that your neighborhood is not a 100: gun free. I hope your neighbors are responsible with their firearms. I hope you are able to overcome your distrust of all gun owners for the sake of your neighbors.
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2017
Only to see a litle red light, the safety light you insisted on... just as the sexx fiend's grubby slimy fingers tighten around your throat........and the useless high tech junk falls to the floor...

I'm pretty sure any weapon that can be coded to work based on DNA or fingerprints can be coded to work by more than one person. But otherwise, agreed...a "smart" weapon is useless to anyone other than the authorized user....the point being it is useless in the hands of the interloping sex fiend...right?
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2017
"You brag that nobody in your neighborhood keeps any firearms either because you don't allow any goobers to live there."
---------------------------

Nope. There are gun nuts all around. Even my neighborhood. Come by and check.

I trust my neighbors.

But speaking of fear, timfromclear, why do you "need" to carry a hidden man-killer?
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2017
Go away, Ira.
If it's all the same to you Cher, I think I will stay.

Your need to "get even" with me for being real is transparent.
"Get even"? Don't saying all that goofy stuffs embarrass you none? To get even I would have to lose something Cher. Getting even for you "being real stupid" is non grand claim to fame, you make it happen all by your self.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2017
Listen, folks, I do not think you people with guns are evil, I just do not want to be around you.

Okay?
timfromclear
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2017
"Need" is a funny word. I don't need a smartphone, or a 3 bedroom house, or a puppy. I didn't need to get married or have children.

I don't NEED a gun anymore than I need to lock my door at night. Or anymore than I need a fire extinguisher.

I said very clearly that I've never had to use a gun in self defense and that I didn't expect that I ever would. I said avoiding stupid people doing stupid things at stupid places to be more valuable than a gun.

I choose to have a gun and I choose to carry for the same reasons I take any precautions. If I thought it was a "need", I'd be arguing why everyone should carry instead of defending the right to choose
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2017
From our side, it looks like we are at the mercy of your judgment.

We think that judgment is demonstrably poor since you carry a hidden man-killer, so you can "protect" us. I do not trust you. It is not personal, I am 72 and have seen too many "mistakes".
timfromclear
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2017
To be completely honest, the anonymity of the Internet is the only reason I would even admit to carrying. It's not really "concealed" if people know. In person, you would never realize that I carry.

You make it sound as though gun owners are inherently more threatening. But 6% of the nation has concealed carry permits and only commits 0.16 of all murders.

The truth is that law abiding citizens who legally own and ESPECIALLY those who carry are far less of a risk than the average citizen
timfromclear
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2017
My judgment is that of a group of people willing to pay out of their own pocket to prove they have never committed a violent crime and to pay more to register fingerprints in a state database that's checked against every shooting making it tougher to get away with crime.

If that's the kind of person you don't trust.... so be it.
timfromclear
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2017
Even if I were the murderous type, you aren't simply at my mercy. I do not want to lose my job, lose my family, lose my freedom over any improper use of my gun. I also don't know who else might be carrying putting my life at risk.

There is never a time when I would shoot you or anyone else unless doing so would save my life or the lives of my family.

So have no fear of me, or of any law abiding gun owners. You are not at their mercy. You are not moments away from them randomly shooting you. Concealed carry holders are thirty TIMES LESS LIKELY to commit murder than the average citizen
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2017
I do not refute your points. They are valid.

I guess I came home from the war hating folk with guns. I was in unarmed electronic airborne reconnaissance, and we lost 22 of us "non-combatants" while we were helping to kill people in their own country.
Thnder
3 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2017
No, Thndr. Your hubris alone makes you a bad risk.

My hubris? Stating facts is not hubris, it is honesty.

Stay out of my neighborhood.

Since I don't know you, perhaps. Since you don't know me, we might walk side by side every now and again and you wouldn't know the difference. Hence the sheep don't get startled.

"You would be better off not trusting the Police with their firearms, than to distrust CC permit holders."

I'll tell my son-in-law, a police sergeant. He will be really impressed.

Happy for you and him, I am always pleased when people share factual information.
timfromclear
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2017
Vietnam was a disaster of a war. I'm saddened that it has ruined your opinion of all people with guns. The real shame of it is you have probably been around many good, honest, safe concealed carry holders who have known your opinions of people who carry and therefore have never admitted they carry.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
He leaves his guns at home. He has nothing to prove.
this is one reason people know you are a blatant liar - it is also demonstrative why your argument from D-K and self perceived authority fails: if your son in law is a law enforcement officer then he is required by his job to keep a firearm with him at all times, on or off duty

i know of exactly zero law enforcement agencies, be they local, state, federal, reservation or military that do not allow carry off duty
We think that judgment is demonstrably poor since you carry a hidden man-killer, so you can "protect" us
1- CC is not for people to run around playing cop, you idiot

CC is for you to be able to protect yourself and your family

2- i'll forward your sentiments and diatribe to your son-in-law so he can see how terrified you are of him

3- per your own request to clean up the site ...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2017
Listen, folks, I do not think you people with guns are evil, I just do not want to be around you.

Okay?
What george wants...

"The psychopath does not think that they have any psychological or emotional problems, and they see no reason to change their behavior to conform to standards with which they do not agree. They are well-satisfied with themselves and their inner landscape. They see nothing wrong with they way they think or act, and they never look back with regret or forward with concern. They perceive themselves as superior beings in a hostile world in which others are competitors for power and resources. They feel it is the optimum thing to do to manipulate and deceive others in order to obtain what they want."

-George wants freedom just like everybody else. Gun owners want freedom from people like george, and he knows it.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2017
Stumpy and "otto" will feel much better after they kill something for the thrills.

Look how grumpy they are now.

Look out, squirrels!
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2017
"They perceive themselves as superior beings in a hostile world in which others are competitors for power and resources. They feel it is the optimum thing to do to manipulate and deceive others in order to obtain what they want."
----------------------------------
otto, I AM superior to you. I am a real person, George Kamburoff, while you are an anonymous sniper hiding from society to get even with us. You are too SCARED to take responsibility for your words.

We do not compete for any resources, I have mine, and make my own electricity, while you are just a consumer, a tool.

I do enjoy seeing your fixation on me, however. It is flattering to have so much domination over somebody else.
timfromclear
4 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2017
I hope no one in here besides myself is looking for an actual conversation. Or looking to convince the other side to soften their baises. Because if that's ya'lls intention, ya'll are idiots. Insults and superiority complexes, profanity and ignoring points of view are not the way to have open conversations.

Seems ya'll just want to troll and irritate with no gain except earning high fives from no one except your own self.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2017
I hope no one in here besides myself is looking for an actual conversation. Or looking to convince the other side to soften their baises. Because if that's ya'lls intention, ya'll are idiots. Insults and superiority complexes, profanity and ignoring points of view are not the way to have open conversations.

Seems ya'll just want to troll and irritate with no gain except earning high fives from no one except your own self.
So, timmy, youre willing to continue conversing with someone about military service that the people here are telling you has consistently lied about his military service?

And you think we're being bullies for exposing him as stolen valor?

You that lonely dude?
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2017
No lies, "otto", I sent you to at least three military websites with my name and/or picture on them.

Send us to yours.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2017
I do enjoy seeing your fixation on me, however. It is flattering to have so much domination over somebody else
-And just look at how you snookered poor timmy into a conversation just so you could practice your psychopath skills.

Like I say, I fixate on rabid dogs roaming around the neighborhood in exactly the same way. Its not envy its community service.
timfromclear
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2017
I was hardly "snookered" the comment about closing minds instead of opening them was meant for both him and you and others.

As for "stolen valor" this guy is 71,which means he would have been subject to the draft during Vietnam. He also never claimed he did anything of valor, just that losing fellow troops by gun soured him to gun ownership.
timfromclear
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2017
The sad part Otto is that you and I probably agree on most every part of gun ownership. I didn't even initially comment on your claim of stolen valor. You just assumed I couldn't be talking about anything else.

You made up that gkam claimed valor and then claimed you have proof he made it up. This extreme ridiculousness has me defending a guy who thinks that his position on gun ownership makes him superior to everyone who disagrees. It's retardedness on both sides
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2017
I was hardly "snookered" the comment about closing minds instead of opening them was meant for both him and you and others.

As for "stolen valor" this guy is 71,which means he would have been subject to the draft during Vietnam. He also never claimed he did anything of valor, just that losing fellow troops by gun soured him to gun ownership.
You have been tricked by a psychopath who is only here to manipulate people for his own enjoyment. Notice how youre defending him?

George has been here for a year or 2 and people have gone to considerable effort to expose him for what he is. You ought to respect that.
You made up that gkam claimed valor and then claimed you have proof he made it up
And just how the fuck would you know this?
timfromclear
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2017
I do not have the time to read every page and comment on this site. I see what's in this thread. Gkam never once mentions anything of valor here.

Did he claim valor somewhere else? If so, do you think you could mention that instead of cursing? Do you have the capacity for civilized discussion?

I don't like gkam and I didn't agree with him. Frankly, I don't like you either.

I guess I'll just take your word that he's stolen valor? I guess I'll just take your word that he's a psychopath? Nothing in this thread would indicate that except a troll cursing at me. Color me convinced.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2017
As I said, I do not assume I am any better. I have an aversion to guns.

otto's problem is personal. He and Ira and Stumpy ran this forum as their own, and when I came in claiming some experience in matters, they screamed "LIAR!" and "BULLSHIT!", and other stuff appropriate for their level of discourse.

When I proved my experience they went nuts, having staked their reputations on me being a phony like them.

The stolen valor thing comes in because I mentioned I was in the group when we earned both of our Outstanding Unit Citations "with Combat "V" Device" in the Vietnam War. I sent him to three military websites with my name in them, but it hardened his stand.

otto never served. He hid at home like many of the rest. That maybe okay, but hearing those kind urge violence and praise war makes me want to puke.

Send them. Send them.
timfromclear
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2017
Actually gkam, in just this thread you did say "I am better than you".

I have no idea if you are claiming military honors that you don't deserve, nor is such a thing relevant to me about the initial conversation here about gun owners.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2017
He also never claimed he did anything of valor
@timfromclear
that is where you're wrong: he claims to have a "Combat V" for valor device awarded to him as a part of the unit he was assigned to but can't actually produce any verifiable valid evidence supporting said combat award (here: http://phys.org/n...ity.html )

it's not about getting even as i've tried to help the above idiot on many occasions, at first, privately so he wouldn't get embarrassed. but then he started lying about what was sent, so i told him that anything he sent further would be public to verify i wasn't lying

- which you can verify here: http://s1027.phot...p;page=1

PW=VALIDATE

i am not making claims that i can't validate with evidence
evidence is king in science, and that is what i have
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2017
@timfromclear cont'd
I'll just take your word that he's stolen valor?
don't take anyone's word - always demand evidence
that is how people like liar-kam manipulate the situation. making claims that can't be validated then attacking when evidence is presented that demonstrates their logical failures, like above
notice how she doesn't actually address the point that his son in law must CC off duty? instead she attacks with a blatant lie about killing
Did he claim valor somewhere else?
linked above
Do you have the capacity for civilized discussion?
re: otto an others here who dislike liar-kam - yes, we (he) can have civilised discourse
but when you spend a couple years here watching the site degrade from science discourse to trolling idiocy & arguing from self perceived authority while the same folk make blatantly false claims, you become acerbic

stick around & you will be able to tell the trolls from the legit
the ratings sometimes help-not always though
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2017
]I was hardly "snookered"
You gave the sicko the chance to repeat all those lies about himself. He used you.
it's not about getting even as i've tried to help the above idiot on many occasions
Manipulation is their end game. They live to fuck with people. We all know george isnt here for enlightened discourse. They WANT your sympathy.

"They are absolutely the world's best manipulators, liars, and fabricators of truth. They do so convincingly because they believe their own lies. After all their life is nothing but a lie, a sham, how can we possibly assume they know anything different."

"This leads us to an important question: what does the psychopath REALLY get from their victims? It's easy to see what they are after when they lie and manipulate for money or material goods or power... we can only say that it seems to be that the psychopath ENJOYS making others suffer."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2017
"Very little is known about subcriminal psychopathy. However, some researchers have begun to seriously consider the idea that it is important to study psychopathy not as an artificial clinical category but as a general personality trait in the community at large. In other words, psychopathy is being recognized as a more or less a different type of human."

-I personally would put someone who lies and manipulates for the sport of it in the 'sub-human' category.

And they dont do it because they had bad childhoods or theyre misunderstood. They lack vital parts of the psyche that normal people have. Theyre automatons; caricatures.

" And make no mistake about it: you can NOT hurt their feelings because they don't have any! They will pretend to have feelings if it suits their purposes or gets them what they want."
timfromclear
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2017
Well, I guess it's my fault I engaged in an open discussion. I guess it's also my fault that before he brought up valor, that you did. And it's 100% my fault for not reading every comment on every post on this site. It's also probably my fault that before you offered anything in the way of proof, you first decided to be a prick to me. despite the fact that I already didn't like and was arguing with gkam.

Have fun fighting each other for the rest of your lives, I'm out
Shootist
1 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2017
The folk who need to carry guns are so insecure they will not trust smart guns.

Let's face it: They carry for emotional reasons, which by itself is good reason to ban them from having deadly weapons.


In the land of the Free, 350 million legal firearms owned by 65 million legal gun owners who possess 12 trillion rounds of legally owned ammunition.

You're out numbered and if there were a coup the winning side would be the NRA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America and liberty loving men and women all across the fruited plain.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
I used to pick wasps off their nests one at time with my BB gun, and shot Expert in the service the first time. You might not come off so well in a war with us war vets who learned better.

My distrust of those of you who "need" guns to be equal to me is not allayed by the words of gun nuts.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
Gun ownership is a good measure of mental health. The paranoid, the weak, the SCARED, they all put us at risk because of their weaknesses and "need" for guns.

With an average of over five guns per gun nut, those shootists are showing us a glimpse of the irrational, poorly-educated side of America.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
I used to pick wasps off their nests one at time with my BB gun, and shot Expert in the service the first time.
Of course you did, we would be disappointed if you did anything less.

You might not come off so well in a war with us war vets who learned better.
Cher, you are an elderly 72 year old man who "got over the thrill of guns" 50 years ago. And haven't owned a gun since according to you. I am sure that anybody who is a regular basis chooter would really worry about you (unless you were wearing women's clothes like you are so fond of doing.)
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
Women's clothes? Stooping to that silly stuff? Ira must be pretty frustrated.

I would not shoot anyone. That is why I chose the technical side of the military.

What side of the military did you choose to serve in?
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
Gun nuts will be delirious with glee after Trump lets the mentally-ill get access to guns, like he is doing. Yup, he wants the law changed so everybody, including the diagnosed mentally ill can have the guns they want to use against anyone they want. It is called Freedom.

I think we should have National Wild west Days, where those goobers can shoot it out on Main Street. The survivors get the guns of their victims.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
Women's clothes? Stooping to that silly stuff?
Well if you like that it don't matter to me. It just don't fit with Expert war veteran who is too tuff for anybody to think about messing with.

I would not shoot anyone. That is why I chose the technical side of the military.
So you was just being the Rhetoric-Skippy and did not really mean it when you said,,,,

You might not come off so well in a war with us war vets who learned better.


What side of the military did you choose to serve in?
What side? Well that is a stupid question, even for a moron. Our side. (Louisiana is part of America.).
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
I used to pick wasps off their nests one at time with my BB gun
calling bullsh*t on this one
shot Expert in the service the first time
no, you didn't, because it would be on your DD214in section 24 (Badges, medals, commendations, campaign ribbons, etc)
and guess what, there is absolutely no award for marksmanship at all
period

your own attempt to lie about your service comes back to prove you're a liar

again

http://s1027.phot...p;page=1

PW=VALIDATE

My distrust of those of you who "need" guns to be equal to me
the only thing needed to be equal to you is a lobotomy

in your haste to "prove" how real you are you've provided the evidence to prove you're a chronic liar - from your own records, and in your own words

so, per your request to clean up the site, and since you won't actually address the topics or science...
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
Outgrow it, Sgt Rumpy. Your hate for me goads you to silly attempts to hurt.

The Air Force does not issue badges for marksmanship.

If you had served, you might know that.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
The Air Force does not issue badges for marksmanship.


https://www.mymil...ct/1300R

http://www.milita...rse.html

You should be a Wiki-Warrior-Skippy if you are going to peddle your lies on the interweb because you are telling the GREAT BIG LIE, again.

https://en.wikipe...ir_Force

The U.S. Air Force awards a single ribbon, known as the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, for an expert qualification on either the M16 rifle, M4 carbine or the individuals AFSC's (duty) designated pistol. The ribbon is issued in only one degree; however, a  3⁄16 inch bronze star may be worn on the ribbon for those who have qualified expert on both the service rifle and pistol.[3] The ribbon was authorized by the Secretary of the Air Force on Aug. 28, 1962, and was awarded to all Air Force members who qualified after Jan. 1, 1963.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
Well then, I have to go get mine. I got Expert in the Summer of 1965 with an M-1 carbine.

I love this. Your fixation has taken over your alleged life.

Go read the comments on my performance reviews Rumpy the Stalker hosts for us.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
Well then, I have to go get mine. I got Expert in the Summer of 1965 with an M-1 carbine.
Then why they did not give it to you? You just don't seem like the kind of Skippy who would sit back and not get your award.

You can't even keep from telling new lies that contradict the lies you tell before in the same article.

Go read the comments on my performance reviews Rumpy the Stalker hosts for us.
Cher, you know I have read them before. And there is not anything in them about you being the Expert at anything. But if it would make you happy, I'll give the Expert Couyon Medal to go with your silly looking pointy cap with the stars and moons on him.

Oooh, I almost forget. You still passing out the pictures of you wearing that really goofy looking Air Force hat? Yeah the one that looks like something Errol-Flynn-Skippy would wear in one of those silly movies to make him look "dashing", eh?
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2017
I am not going into a discussion of "Air Force hats" for some goober. That was our official uniform. I guess you stay-at-home folk don't get out much.

If you are unaware of the genesis of that "hat", it may be a good thing to look up.

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2017
"And there is not anything in them about you being the Expert at anything."
--------------------------

That is exactly what they say. The Avionics Officer at the Air Force Flight Test Center knew more about it than you, an internet sniper.

Your silly words are insufficient response to real experience.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2017
Well Cher, I am sure you guys were fond of your hats, and proud of the badges and ribbons you forgot to remind them to give you. So I will leave you to bask in your glory and go watch one of my Leverage videos.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2017
No "glory". That is the word of a stay-at-home talking to stay-at-homes.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
silly attempts to hurt
and again, you're posting a known fallacious comment that is blatantly false and proven so already

i presented a factual statement that can be validated by reviewing UCMJ ("Title 10 U.S.C., Chapter 45, The Uniform, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1334.1, Wearing of the Uniform, and Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-29, Military Standards")

also linked by Ira, i see

you are required to have your awards, citations, cert's and information in your 201 file (which you didn't even know existed) before you can wear them on your uniform

if you've separated, you must have them on the DD214 to wear them in uniform. see also AFI 36-2903. AFI 36-28
all already noted here: https://phys.org/...ity.html

as such, you're blatantly lying - again
therefore, per your own request...
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2017
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam cont'd
No "glory". That is the word of a stay-at-home talking to stay-at-homes.
except you just demonstrated that, despite your DD214, you're about as well versed in military knowledge as my dog, except that she actually holds a higher rank than you did

also note: you stated a blatant false comment (AKA- lied) that is proven false not only by regulations but also by your own paperwork
you can't wear or own a marksmanship ribbon or award as it's not in your 201 nor is it on your DD214

it's called STOLEN VALOR, much like your combat V claims

Your silly words are insufficient response to real experience. Your fixation has taken over your alleged life.

If you had served, you might know that.

.

,

PS - where is my summons you kept threatening me with? when are ya gonna sue or at least come threaten me to my face as you promised?

LOL
ab3a
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2017
It's impossible to make a gun smart enough to put in the hands of dumb Americans.

It's impossible to reason with someone who paints an entire country with the same broad brush.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2017
Get used to this: We do not trust you with guns.

Look at you folk. Ira ruined his own character and image by misrepresenting facts. You cannot see one of my posts without going crazy. You now have a large collection of items about me, a dossier, the kind carried by stalkers. Are you nuts?

Grow up, kids.
Estevan57
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2017
Wow, gkam, you really got it handed to you this time!

Perhaps it would be better if you don't comment on crime and gun ownership articles because you always get such a beat-down.

Why use lies to try to play the "experience" card? You are just not sophisticated enough to get away with the "experience" game.

And "we"? Speak for yourself, since no-one agrees with you.

"You folk"? We all have names. If your argument is not rational, this forum is probably not the place to speak it.

No-one wants to know what you are afraid of, your list is just too long.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2017
Wow, this fixation is contagious.

I trust the police with guns, not you.

You have already shown you are easily emotionally manipulated.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2017
If your argument is not rational, this forum is probably not the place to speak it.
@Estevan57
true, but the reason she gets away with it is because it's not really moderated
(part time, sometimes, when it suits their strange mood)

you will note that she doesn't ever do this on moderated sites like SciForums because argument from authority, then baiting with sniping and whiny "they hurt my feelings by proving me a liar" posts are deleted and the user is banhammered
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2017
Shouldn't you folk be out playing with your guns?
Estevan57
3 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2017
Outgrow it, Sgt Rumpy. Your hate for me goads you to silly attempts to hurt.

The Air Force does not issue badges for marksmanship.

If you had served, you might know that.
- gkam

Ha ha Ha Ha ha Ha Ha ha.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.