"Negative Reinforcement" Teaches Gun Safety?

Either one of those possible alerts could scare or spook the gun handler to point where an accidental discharge could result should it be loaded.....not good. If that happened, you can be sure it would reinforce gun safety. Back to the drawing board.

Bwahahahahaaa! What a stupid concept.

I bet this would work REALLY well on Glocks, xDs, M&Ps, etc. Better use that kind of electricity that is conducted by plastic!

Actually, it's just WRONG on so many levels. This MIGHT work if you had some need for training dogs not to eat guns they find lying out in the open. That level of intellect can be influenced by this very simplistic form of negative reinforcement. However, a) people are smarter than that, especially as they mature past infantcy, and b) who would be enough of an a$$ to leave their "baby-taser" equipped gun out where very young kids (the only humans who will be impressed by this in any way) would be able to repeatedly be shocked by it?

"Lets see, I don't care enough about the security of my guns, or the safety of those who might inadvertantly access them, to buy a cabinet or safe to lock them up, but I DO care enough to purchase and install every time an electronic device to shock anyone who picks up the gun. Further, I really like the idea that anyone who picks up my valuable firearm and then turns it up out of a horizontal position, will then be shocked by it, and will, of course, drop it on the ground or throw it accross the room!"

Quite possibly the most assinine firearms "safety" device, ever!

I'm sure someone will make millions on it. I'd bet there are certain legislators who've already been approached to start the law machine turning to mandate their use in CA or NJ...

-Sam

I doubt seriously anyone will make money off this, because I don't think that you are going to be able to get anyone to manufacture it. If there is one thing that I learned from these inventing shows and Billy Mays is that a surprising amount of fairly stupid stuff actually doesn't get made.

A well-thought out idea ... by someone who doesn't understand gun safety.

The basic concept, of course, is to either 1) startle the child - and curious children don't stay startled for long - or 2) alert the parent in which case the child, having located said forbidden object, will simply wait until the parents are not around which is, of course, worse than the original problem of curiosity.

Teach 'em young, teach 'em right, and take the mystery out of the object. And of course, lock 'em up when not in use (the guns, not the kids ... well, maybe the kids too.)

............ a surprising amount of fairly stupid stuff actually doesn't get made.

Click to expand...

Thank goodness for that. And, let me add, a surprising amount of fairly stupid stuff GETS made. Sometimes it's produced because it will sell, not necessarily because it's a better mousetrap!

The inventor is from New York....

Someone who doesn't know what gun safety actually is has apparently had an attack of the clevers. This thing is a booby trap, not a safety device.

Not only is it an idiotic idea, it is incorrectly characterized as using negative reinforcement. In psychological parlance, reinforcement encourages a behavior, it does not discourage a behavior. This is clearly designed to discourage the behavior of touching a gun. Positive reinforcement encourages a behavior by providing a positive stimulus whenever a behavior is exhibited (e.g. press the lever, get a nut). Negative reinforcement encourages a behavior by removing a negative stimulus in response to the encouraged behavior (e.g. press the lever to stop the loud noise).

The term for discouraging a behavior by providing a negative stimulus (e.g. electric shock) is punishment.

Can you tell I was a psychology major?

Negative reinforcement encourages a behavior by removing a negative stimulus in response to the encouraged behavior (e.g. press the lever to stop the loud noise).

Click to expand...

So really they should be saying your kids will run around all day getting the bejeezes shocked out of them -- which will stop whenever they get smart enough to set the gun down.



-Sam

And, let me add, a surprising amount of fairly stupid stuff GETS made.

Click to expand...

haha, that is true!

You know, I was a pretty wild kid, but I have to say that guns were never an issue for me. Why? Because my Dad made it clear to me from about the time that I could walk not to screw around with them. He kept me around them, let me handle them (with his supervision, obviously) talked to me about them and, yes, even threatened me with death should he ever catch me playing with them. Those lessons stuck with me. The lessons about not jumping off roofs or playing with matches or playing ball around windows, not so much

Here is the proof: Me at about 5 hanging out with dad while he reloaded...

Well the other concern I have is let's say someone does use this stupid thing, and the kiddo who is now conditioned to put a gun down when it shocks them, all of the sudden picks one up that doesn't - then it must be okay to play with! This is the wrong message to teach kiddos.

More oever-engineering of a simple problem. In this case, they are trying to passively teach something that should be actively taught.

Firearms safety isn't just about "hands off the guns"....it's about understanding the potential of a firearm and respecting it's power. The real issue today is kids aren't taught to respect limits....instead told "don't do this"....they're never taught why they shouldn't do this other than "because I said so".

Honestly, kids can be very smart....actually at that age, they're a sponge for knowledge. Feed that sponge and feed it the good stuff, not the garbage many kids today are being fed.

After all these years I am thankful of my dad for some of the more oddball restrictions he put on me. They seemed to be parental powertripping when I was younger (and I was always challenging authority as a kid, from age 3 on up)...but once I got older and wiser, I realized it was just making sure I not get exposed to the wrong things, thus not getting bad practices stuck in my head.

This is just passing the buck on responsibility. "Oh, I don't have to worry about my guns when I'm not there, because I have this shocker thingy in it!" Or, "Oh, I don't have to teach my kids gun safety because I have this shocker thingy in it!" And we wonder why accidents happen, and our kids don't listen to us

Negative reinforcement encourages a behavior by removing a negative stimulus in response to the encouraged behavior (e.g. press the lever to stop the loud noise).

The term for discouraging a behavior by providing a negative stimulus (e.g. electric shock) is punishment.

Click to expand...

This. I was going to say it if you hadn't beat me to it, Blackbeard.

OH MY GOD!... I need to go take a pill. Seriously, I have prescriptions for blood pressure and ulcers that my doctor wholeheartedly agrees are problems I have due to being engulfed on a daily basis by the out of control retardation of the human species.

I hope they do put it into production... one less thing a parent has to worry about, plus it's fun at parties. Then when a kid does figure out how to circumvent it and blows their head or siblings head off the parents have one less kid to worry about, they can sue the mfg. for defective equipment, retire rich and the dumbass that developed it can lose everything he owns and maybe even end up in jail. Afterall, no one is responsible anymore for their own actions...it's the fault of everyone else.

I need to go lay down....

Absolutely terrible idea. The revolver design is an accident waiting to happen and who knows what will occur with a semi-auto.

It does give us a new term (to honor the inventor): Midgley / Midg, meaning unnecessary / exists for no reason / just plain stupid / prone to accidents / poor quality - it just depends on how it's used.

Examples:

"Be careful...the last thing we need is a Midg." Accidental discharge avoidance.

"That thing is a real Midgley." Pile of junk.

"I added another laser to my rifle, so I now have 2...do you think I've Midged it?" Completely unnecessary.

"Do you think there is a market for jackets that keep fish warm, or am I flirting with Midg?" Exists for no reason

"I Midged my revolver: I filed off the front sight and greased the barrel so I can draw it faster in case I have a real 'high noon' gunfight, like in the movies!" Just plain stupid.

You get the idea!

It does give us a new term (to honor the inventor): Midgley / Midg, meaning unnecessary / exists for no reason / just plain stupid / prone to accidents / poor quality - it just depends on how it's used.

Click to expand...

Oh the irony! There already was a very influential inventor at the beginning of last century with that last name. Thomas Midgley. His two inventions: Tetra-Ethyl Lead gasoline additive, and chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr.

No possible idea if this inventor is related to him, but if so I would hold that as incontrovertible proof of a "disastrous inventions" gene in the family DNA. Fortunately, this Midgley's invention is highly unlikely to get the traction that Thomas Midgley's products did.

-Sam

Ooooh, I like it (the term, not the gadget; see my post #9, above). I think that we can also define The Midgley Effect, which results from the propensity of uninformed but well meaning tinkerers (or of people with ulterior motives) to substantially or completely ruin a good design by the addition of extraneous, even dangerous crap.

For examples, see "Windows Vista," "S&W revolver lock," or "John Deere riding lawn mower."

Sam1911: What are the odds??? If related, we could argue about some sort of regression in their ability to invent necessary stuff.

I like The Midgley Effect! That really says it all...and so many applications. A lot more than his ridiculous invention!