"Negative Reinforcement" Teaches Gun Safety?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Zoidberg523, Dec 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zoidberg523

    Zoidberg523 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    230
    Location:
    Michigan
    http://www.invention.net/midgley.htm

    Interesting idea, I guess. A faux-magazine (in the semi-auto design concept, anyway) contains electronics used to either shock(electrically), warn (verbally), or sound an alarm when the firearm is handled, presumably by someone who shouldn't be handling it.

    The question is, is this really a good way to reinforce gun safety? I mean, the very idea seems to be, "Make them afraid of guns."

    Also, with the revolver design: If you kept the firearm loaded, and it was mishandled, causing an electrical charge to jolt through the gun, couldn't that (in theory) discharge one or more cartridges?

    Maybe my perception on this is incorrect - anyone? :confused:
     
  2. wishin

    wishin Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,430
    Location:
    Georgia
    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.
     
  3. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,961
    Location:
    Central PA
    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
     
  4. TimboKhan

    TimboKhan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    8,178
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    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.
     
  5. svaz

    svaz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    AZ, 30 miles from the Border
    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.)
     
  6. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    13,842
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    No this is a horrible idea. I was never taught to fear firearms and I turned out just fine. I was taught to respect firearms and to never, never touch them without permission of dad, whom I did fear.
     
  7. wishin

    wishin Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,430
    Location:
    Georgia
    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!
     
  8. NickEllis

    NickEllis Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    4,862
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    The inventor is from New York....
     
  9. Brian Dale

    Brian Dale Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,554
    Location:
    on the farm
    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.
     
  10. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    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?
     
  11. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,961
    Location:
    Central PA
    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.

    :D

    -Sam
     
  12. TimboKhan

    TimboKhan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    8,178
    Location:
    Greeley, CO
    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:neener:

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

    Timmy.jpg
     
  13. skwab

    skwab Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    380
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  14. mustang_steve

    mustang_steve Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,081
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area, Florida
    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.
     
  15. Zoidberg523

    Zoidberg523 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    230
    Location:
    Michigan
    I posted this thread and then went to work. I am now happy to see that everyone who has commented seems to be along the same train of thought as myself; what a terrible idea. It seems to me that every time someone who is unfamiliar with guns (as I assume this inventor must be) meddles in our affairs, they muddy the water. Inventions like this, gun control, the media. All of them are the anti's evil minions! :D
     
  16. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    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 :rolleyes:
     
  17. MrCleanOK

    MrCleanOK Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,384
    Location:
    Alaska
    This. I was going to say it if you hadn't beat me to it, Blackbeard.
     
  18. chibiker

    chibiker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    Northern Illinois
    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....
     
  19. DFW1911

    DFW1911 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,231
    Location:
    Hill Country, TX
    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!
     
  20. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,961
    Location:
    Central PA
    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
     
  21. Brian Dale

    Brian Dale Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,554
    Location:
    on the farm
    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." :evil:
     
  22. DFW1911

    DFW1911 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,231
    Location:
    Hill Country, TX
    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!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice