US Government Releases Proposed Guidelines For Smart Guns

big_aug

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
2,183
First: Not true, you don't need a background check to buy a car. You do for a firearm, unless it is purchased in a private sale, a time when you couldn't enforce a check anyway.

Second: the closest thing to Gun rights for liberals is voting rights.

Restricting gun rights is not like licencing a privilege, it is like restricting voting rights.

If you can restrict gun rights without a constitutional amendment, then you can restrict voting rights without a constitutional amendment.

So a county could remove women's suffrage, or a city could remove people of color's right to vote.

Do you get the problem with that scenario?

Even the ACLU agrees with me: Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms


There are restrictions even on free speech.

Once again no one is talking about removing rights. There are already restrictions and regulations in place for voting rights. There are regulations and restrictions in place for guns as well that many believe are inadequate and should be revisited.
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
23,003
No, there isn't. There may be legal consequences depending on what is said and the context it was given, but there are no outright restrictions.
In the US, anyway. You can be prosecuted for libel, slander, and inciting violence, but there are no restrictions by the government on your ability to say those things in the first place. The accuser has to prove intent in those cases, and even so it is a civil matter.
 

big_aug

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
2,183
No, there isn't. There may be legal consequences depending on what is said and the context it was given, but there are no outright restrictions.

Let me rephrase. Limits. Just as there are limits to gun ownership and those limits need revisited
 
Last edited:

atp1916

[H]ard|DCoTM x1
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
4,809
God forbid they try SOMETHING. Guns are a problem that need dealt with and yet anytime something is proposed that could be positive, people won't even hear it. Sure, it needs work. We have to start somewhere. At this point, we should be listening to and exploring all ideas.

But "'murica" and "muh guns!"

No.

People
and their emotions are the problem.

I could care less about whether weapon rights get curtailed or not, but i'm sick of the scapegoating and lack of accountability. The people doing all the killing these days are/where criminals first, and the weapons they use don't change that fact.

On top of all that, we got people like you who would keep loading these laws/restrictions onto the backs of current laws/restrictions that were existing in the first place.

Enforce the current laws, met out swift and impartial justice to law-breakers, observe the changes and then come back to us about the apparent effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the legal tools used to curtail the problem.
 
Last edited:

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
20,746
Let me rephrase. Limits. Just as there are limits to gun ownership and those limits need revisited

Convicted felons (or anyone that doesn't pass the NICS) are not allowed to handle, possess, or own firearms. Because it's already illegal.

Anyone is not allowed to use a firearm in any unlawful manner, even if the firearm is not loaded or discharged. Up to, and including, murder. Because it's already illegal.

Anyone is not allowed to purchase a firearm from a dealer without a BATFE form 4473 and NICS check. Because it's already illegal.

Seriously, all the bases are ALREADY COVERED. Any failures are failures of federal and/or individual state firearms laws. They are not the failures of responsible, safe, and law-abiding citizens. What more do think could actually be legislated that will only inhibit criminals instead of law-abiding citizens?

I'll go listen to the crickets chirping in my backyard while you try to come up with realistic non-infringing solutions...
 

LazN

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
143
Gun owners are cowards.

It's been said that "Guns are for the weak"

And I totally agree with that.

Guns are for the 90lb woman faced with the 250lb rapist.
Guns are for the 150lb programmer faced with several knife wielding muggers.
Guns are for the weak.

to paraphrase:
God made man, Samuel Colt made him equal.

And I say that not believing in God.
 
Last edited:

big_aug

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
2,183
No.

People
and their emotions are the problem.

I could care less about whether weapon rights get curtailed or not, but i'm sick of the scapegoating and lack of accountability. The people doing all the killing these days are/where criminals first, and the weapons they use don't change that fact.

On top of all that, we got people like you who would keep loading these laws/restrictions onto the backs of current laws/restrictions that were existing in the first place.

Enforce the current laws, met out swift and impartial justice to law-breakers, observe the changes and then come back to us about the apparent effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the legal tools used to curtail the problem.

The current laws are being enforced. About 17% of all prison inmates (state and federal average) were in possession of a firearm at the time of their crime.

So almost 20% of our prison population had a gun on them when they committed a crime. Only about 40% of them obtained their firearm in an illegal way. So 60% are getting guns in ways we could better regulate.

I got those numbers from the Bureau of Justice statistics.
 

big_aug

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
2,183
Ok, you may believe that, I disagree. But there is a process for revisiting those limits, it's called a constitutional amendment. The last one was passed in 1992. There is a proper way to go about things like this.

I agree. And we should have that discussion. It shouldnt just be "Nope. 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. We're done."
 

LazN

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
143
Only about 40% of them obtained their firearm in an illegal way. So 60% are getting guns in ways we could better regulate.

I got those numbers from the Beaurou of Justice statistics.

How? What would you add that isn't already law for those 60%? Because most of what the "gun control" crowd is shouting for is already law, or if it isn't it'd be impossible to enforce.
 

big_aug

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
2,183
How? What would you add that isn't already law for those 60%? Because most of what the "gun control" crowd is shouting for is already law, or if it isn't it'd be impossible to enforce.

I don't know. Perhaps keeping better tabs on guns that people own? Almost 40% of those inmates got their firearm from friends/family. Hold them accountable? I don't have the answer, but dismissing everything isn't the way to go.

Mandatory licensing that requires you renew every so often and validate you have your firearm or that it was transferred in a legal way. Much like titles for cars and land etc.
Title is a better word. Each gun would have to have a title that would need to be renewed.
 
Last edited:

LazN

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
143
I don't know. Perhaps keeping better tabs on guns that people own? Almost 40% of those inmates got their firearm from friends/family. Hold them accountable? I don't have the answer, but dismissing everything isn't the way to go.

Mandatory licensing that requires you renew every so often and validate you have your firearm or that it was transferred in a legal way. Much like titles for cars and land etc.

Over 310 million firearms owned by more than 148 million Americans, with gun ownership increasing (by some measures) 150% in the last 15 years all the while (despite the media hype) gun violence decreasing the entire time, and you want to start tracking these people big brother style?

I don't think you get the scale of the issue.

Per NPR: there are more places in America to buy a gun than there are Starbucks in the entire World.

If guns were the terrible scourge that those afraid of those chunks of metal and plastic think they are, there would be no one left alive in the USA.

Motherjones, a pro-gun control website admits that there were only 6 "mass shootings" last year: The media and gun control advocates need to stop inflating the number of mass shootings

And yes, that is terrible, sad, and tragic. And we need better mental health institutions in this country.

But you are talking about tracking and labeling at the federal level 48% of the population (gun owners) because of something that you fear, not because of something they have done
 

ta_erog

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
192
Because if it can work most of the time, then it could be useful in preventing people getting shot with their own weapons. The police would be interested in something like this. It has to be reliable, it has to fail in a state that leaves the firearm operation, it has to work more or less 100% of the time for the correct user of the gun. However if it can prevent someone who takes the gun from firing it, even only say 80% of the time, that is still a win. Not the kind of thing we'll see in use any time soon, as the tech would not only have to be developed, but then proven to a high standard, but it is something there would be legitimate interest for.


Exactly! People seem too eager to dismiss and complain about something that is just "Proposed Guidelines" for a completely optional new type of firearm..
One that needs some sort of regulated basic functions to insure safety. exactly like . . if the system fails it will fail in a usable state. . . What a concept?!? Seems like a no shit feature but seriously look at all the functions of various firearms out there. Not all have a safety, quite a few malfunction at the least cause, some have actions that are a pain to use, can cut the user on use etc etc all over the place - allot of poorly designed or just cheap guns out there. I expect these will be $$ thus integrated into better design firearms right off the bat.

Also for all you conspiracy nutters - did you even read the article before flipping out??? "the Guidelines are in a public input stage, and the NIJ is soliciting input from people ranging from advocates and academics to entrepreneurs." So stop complaining and help right the @#$@ Guidelines.

I can also see the old timer debate starting again. "a reliable gun is only a revolver" debate is a very very old one . . and had some real meaning at one point far in history. but now there are quality autos that are reliable enough where it is no longer an issue so the argument is only relivent and the lowest end of crap guns. The same debate will start here on this . . . the "what IFs" people will come up with ever conceivable failure for the chipped firearms and nay say them. regardless of the truth of the matter.

Plus gun retention is a big deal, where are quite a few agencies and police out there now that have multi level retention holsters for safety but that directly harms there ability to draw in a stress situation. A chipped weapon could help here.

One type I have tried has a RFID in a ring. Extremely reliable, better then any multi level retention holster, and the batteries last for years (I think need to check that again) since it is so low power. I can see no issue with using one regularly as long as the base firearm is of good quality.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
23,003
Exactly! People seem too eager to dismiss and complain about something that is just "Proposed Guidelines" for a completely optional new type of firearm..
One that needs some sort of regulated basic functions to insure safety. exactly like . . if the system fails it will fail in a usable state. . . What a concept?!? Seems like a no shit feature but seriously look at all the functions of various firearms out there. Not all have a safety, quite a few malfunction at the least cause, some have actions that are a pain to use, can cut the user on use etc etc all over the place - allot of poorly designed or just cheap guns out there. I expect these will be $$ thus integrated into better design firearms right off the bat.

Also for all you conspiracy nutters - did you even read the article before flipping out??? "the Guidelines are in a public input stage, and the NIJ is soliciting input from people ranging from advocates and academics to entrepreneurs." So stop complaining and help right the @#$@ Guidelines.

I can also see the old timer debate starting again. "a reliable gun is only a revolver" debate is a very very old one . . and had some real meaning at one point far in history. but now there are quality autos that are reliable enough where it is no longer an issue so the argument is only relivent and the lowest end of crap guns. The same debate will start here on this . . . the "what IFs" people will come up with ever conceivable failure for the chipped firearms and nay say them. regardless of the truth of the matter.

Plus gun retention is a big deal, where are quite a few agencies and police out there now that have multi level retention holsters for safety but that directly harms there ability to draw in a stress situation. A chipped weapon could help here.

One type I have tried has a RFID in a ring. Extremely reliable, better then any multi level retention holster, and the batteries last for years (I think need to check that again) since it is so low power. I can see no issue with using one regularly as long as the base firearm is of good quality.
You make a good point about holsters. A system like this could eliminate the need for secure retention among law enforcement agencies if the system is bulletproof.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
20,746
I agree. And we should have that discussion. It shouldnt just be "Nope. 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms. We're done."

There is a reason it is #2 on the list. And the reason is because the framers of The Constitution just went through multiple years of war with an oppressive regime to alleviate the 100+ years of bullshit puppet-mastering the English Royal Crown dished out to the colonials.

Those that abide by the laws of federal and state firearms laws are not the problem like you are making it out to be. The problem is the small percentage of the overall population that make up the unlawful asshole human group (aka criminals). You know, the same group of humans that will utilize whatever means necessary to hurt or kill others like they have done since the beginning of human existence, long before the invention of gunpowder.
 

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
2,972
I don't know. Perhaps keeping better tabs on guns that people own? Almost 40% of those inmates got their firearm from friends/family. Hold them accountable? I don't have the answer, but dismissing everything isn't the way to go.

Mandatory licensing that requires you renew every so often and validate you have your firearm or that it was transferred in a legal way. Much like titles for cars and land etc.
Title is a better word. Each gun would have to have a title that would need to be renewed.


Lol mandatory licensing for a right. You are once again complaint a right to a privilege. How about we make it mandatory to license someone to speak. If you don't get licensed every word you say costs you $100. If you can't pay the penalty all then be death. If you are going to live in fantasy world I can give you some fantasy penalties.
 

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
2,972
Also, people arguing for a gun registry. Michigan has a handgun registry, and it doesn't help find all these killers in Detroit and Flint. Criminals will never abide by the rules so all a registry does is put law abiding owners on a list for confiscation. He'll, look at Canada. They had a registry system and just got rid of it because our proved to be costly, unreliable and not useful.
 
Last edited:

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,128
I don't know. Perhaps keeping better tabs on guns that people own? Almost 40% of those inmates got their firearm from friends/family. Hold them accountable? I don't have the answer, but dismissing everything isn't the way to go.

Mandatory licensing that requires you renew every so often and validate you have your firearm or that it was transferred in a legal way. Much like titles for cars and land etc.
Title is a better word. Each gun would have to have a title that would need to be renewed.

1: We already have laws against straw purchases, they need to be more strictly enforced.

2: How would each gun having a title that needs to be renewed accomplish anything? Let's say a person needs to renew their registration for their guns on a per firearm basis. Lets even ignore the paperwork and fees required to manage that. How would you prove that the person registering the gun actually still has it? Require that everyone take every gun they own down to the local police station? LOL, no. Allowing the police to search homes? That's a 4a issue. It also wouldn't resolve the problem of someone stealing or "borrowing" a gun from a family member and then using it the next day, as that would not guarantee time for a title transfer, assuming that the participants involved in that transaction would do so in the first place.

3: How would this work when not every firearm has a serial number? Yeah, that wasn't a requirement until the 60's(although most manufacturers were doing that long before required, but not all). So anyone with a collectible firearm needs to deface their property by having a new serial number issued, engraved, and then registered? Nope. Even if you did require that, you wouldn't be able to get everyone to do it, and then you'd still have the problem of people not bothering to update information or even registering in the first place.

4: If you build your own firearms for personal use, a serial number is not required at all. There are lots of people who do this with even ARs and AKs(and that's just a receiver made out of some bent sheetmetal that you can build using a jig and a harbor freight press). New laws would not guarantee that these firearms get a serial number or end up registered even if the owner engraves one.

5: None of this still resolves the issue of someone without a record of any sort building or buying a firearm, and even passing a background check to do so, and then going on a spree because they were already nuts as it is.

How about we do a better job of enforcing laws that are already on the books and get ignored, rather than trying to come up with new laws that have no method of enforcement even if we throw the fourth amendment out the window to do it?
 
Last edited:

LazN

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
143
It is, you are talking about something totally different that your state in there "wisdom" desired to do on there own..

Not my state, but I think it is a bad law, but bad laws can have unintended consequences, like stopping research on smart guns.. I don't have anything against the idea of smart guns, I do have a problem with requiring them by law, and understand why some people put pressure on MFGs to not make them if there is such a law.

And until you can guarantee there will be no law requiring them, I am against them being made. Make a law that would still allow those who don't want a "smart gun" to be able to buy such a device, then I am all for the development of such things.

And saying things like "you can ignore the context of how this thing will affect other things" is just plain dumb.

Yes, the dumb laws re: smart guns are pertinent to the discussion of "smart gun proposals"
 
Last edited:

ta_erog

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
192
but bad laws can have unintended consequences,"
I can't agree more! I also have a problem with requiring them by law, but this was not what the original article was about, it was recommendations on what the base default requirements should be. The talk here has gone far far beyond that.

"you can ignore the context of how this thing will affect other things" ? did someone say this? Context is everything.

Poorly thought out Laws with allot of unintended consequences is the reason for such a big divide on the issues. A knee jerk ban on "Assault weapons" after a shooting does nothing good for anyone. (poorly defined, using the wrong and vague language, that is not enforceable or makes any sense) . . . . vs a law (spit balling here) to require more training (or targeted training) for the weapon and use of that weapon. (ie a home defense hand gun requires stress shooting, etc) have this scale to larger more powerful weapons where time, effort, knowledge and dedication = more access. Not $$ or arbitrary limitation laws. People I know already do this . . but it is far from the norm for average owners to take anything but a "don't shoot my face off" class. it is the fu'tard with no training that thinks he is Rambo or the yahoo showing off his penis extender to his buds and girl, or the militants defending there Merika and god given rights to the tin foil level. . .that really make it hard for serious owners to tell scared non owners that "most" gun owners are trained and good. Hence a tendency for bad knee jerk laws.
 

amddragonpc

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
1,996
You will be able to buy an Apple Gun that syncs to your Apple Watch using bluetooth. Every time you need to fire a bullet, you can pull out your iPhone and use the fingerprint reader to sync it to your gun. For extra security, it would require you to install any new firmware updates before firing. That way you can be sure you're safe in any tense situations.

If someone pulls a gun on you and your Apple Gun needs an update, just calmly ask them to wait while you update and reboot your iPhone and Apple Watch before engaging in any firearms usage.


And then you can issue the command, "Siri, fire gun NOW."
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
The current laws are being enforced. About 17% of all prison inmates (state and federal average) were in possession of a firearm at the time of their crime.

So almost 20% of our prison population had a gun on them when they committed a crime. Only about 40% of them obtained their firearm in an illegal way. So 60% are getting guns in ways we could better regulate.

I got those numbers from the Bureau of Justice statistics.

60% of the time people use free speech to stay stupid shit, just like your post. We should find a way to regulate free speech to make things better.
 

LazN

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
143
I can't agree more! I also have a problem with requiring them by law, but this was not what the original article was about, it was recommendations on what the base default requirements should be. The talk here has gone far far beyond that.

"you can ignore the context of how this thing will affect other things" ? did someone say this? Context is everything.

Poorly thought out Laws with allot of unintended consequences is the reason for such a big divide on the issues. A knee jerk ban on "Assault weapons" after a shooting does nothing good for anyone. (poorly defined, using the wrong and vague language, that is not enforceable or makes any sense) . . . . vs a law (spit balling here) to require more training (or targeted training) for the weapon and use of that weapon. (ie a home defense hand gun requires stress shooting, etc) have this scale to larger more powerful weapons where time, effort, knowledge and dedication = more access. Not $$ or arbitrary limitation laws. People I know already do this . . but it is far from the norm for average owners to take anything but a "don't shoot my face off" class. it is the fu'tard with no training that thinks he is Rambo or the yahoo showing off his penis extender to his buds and girl, or the militants defending there Merika and god given rights to the tin foil level. . .that really make it hard for serious owners to tell scared non owners that "most" gun owners are trained and good. Hence a tendency for bad knee jerk laws.


Requiring training is like no child left behind.. Not going to help.

I know several people who were taught by their parents how to shoot and can out shoot me, and are very safe with their firearms.

I took LEO classes from the local college, including range competency courses, shoot no shoot simulators, and a few course credits on gun laws before I got my CCW because I wanted to know the laws as best I could. I didn't always enjoy being next to certain people in the class at the range.

Do I think it is a good idea to do what I did? Yes absolutely, and I would even be pro offering such courses for free or lowered expense to those who can't afford it etc to get more people trained. (it wasn't exactly cheap to take all those classes, plus time off work etc)

But requiring such courses for every gun owner by law? Just another bad law in my book.
 
Last edited:

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
4. Full protection for anyone using a gun in self defense of them selves or others.

4. In what way do we not already have that?

Are you serious?

There's been a LOT of shooting deaths in the news so you'll just have to be more specific. I notice that George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, Edward Nero and Michael Brelo are all free men so you're not talking about them.

Oh, do you mean Marissa Alexander? I thought that was outrageous too.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,700
This is not what a smart gun should be, a smart gun should be a gun where you just hold down the trigger and it automatically fires when the gun detects it will hit a target. Aimbot. Now that is smart!
 

zer0nix

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
79
> I'm with the therory/utopie that if you don't have easy access to weapons the need to have access to weapon is also reduced. Sorry, I have that simple mindset.

oh boy, here we go...

due to the overwhelming presence of surveillance, crime is decreasing worldwide, BUT...

in those areas where guns are illegal, there are MORE assaults, MORE rapes, MORE kidnappings, MORE burglaries, MORE muggings and MORE MURDER. there are fewer 'murders by gun' (which includes suicides because authoritarians are cunts) but there is not less murder.

to any sensible person this should let you know that guns are just a tool. if i get hit in the head with a softball, i don't blame the softball. i blame the person who threw it, and maybe myself for being in the way.

when criminals know that the civilians are unarmed, they know that they have nothing to fear and will act accordingly. the reverse is also true.

you're not going to stop mass murder, BUT YOU NEVER WERE going to stop that anyway. having legal access to guns reduces crime and ameliorates incidents of mass murder (such as the st james church massacre, where a quartet of thugs armed with fully automatic machineguns and grenades were turned back by one lone gunman firing from cover with a revolver).


on topic, smart guns are effectively the answer to those unfortunate cases where an unintended gun user accidentally blasts someone in the face. i'm for it, although i'm against any attempt to make these devices mandatory as i'm sure they will be overpriced and underengineered.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
20,746
This is not what a smart gun should be, a smart gun should be a gun where you just hold down the trigger and it automatically fires when the gun detects it will hit a target. Aimbot. Now that is smart!

Cyberdyne Systems series 800 model T101 has that feature already. Should be out in about 13 years.
 

Rustynuts

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 6, 2003
Messages
10,348
I don't know. Perhaps keeping better tabs on guns that people own? Almost 40% of those inmates got their firearm from friends/family. Hold them accountable? I don't have the answer, but dismissing everything isn't the way to go.

Mandatory licensing that requires you renew every so often and validate you have your firearm or that it was transferred in a legal way. Much like titles for cars and land etc.
Title is a better word. Each gun would have to have a title that would need to be renewed.
Absurd. Show me how any of that prevents criminal activity.
 

big_aug

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
2,183
Absurd. Show me how any of that prevents criminal activity.

Being required to prove you own your guns or that they were transferred legally? When nearly 40% of criminals got their guns from friends or family? If you can't prove you own your firearms or they were transferred legally, then you pay hefty penalties. Obviously it would have to be worked on. There would have to be an entire bureaucracy created to manage it. That would have to be paid for (perhaps with fees for transfers of gun titles and taxes on gun sales). People would have to register each and every fire arm they own which presents logistical problems but it could be done on a time line. Give people X amount of time to complete registration and do it in blocks of people somehow. Etc etc. It could be done.

Will it prevent all of the problems? Nope. Would it probably have a significant impact? Maybe. Would it make people realize how serious guns and gun ownership are? Hopefully.

It would never happen though. If everyone is such a responsible owner, then there shouldn't be a problem. There would be no fees to maintain ownership of guns. You would just need to prove that you own them by presenting them once a year or something like that.

I made that up in one day. I'm some random guy on the internet. If people truly had a conversation about gun ownership, then something that worked very well could be created that didn't infringe upon the right to bear arms but also helped to ensure all gun owners are responsible.

The whole "criminals don't follow the law" is a cop out. I've already demonstrated that the majority of inmates are not obtaining their firearms illegally (see BOJ statistics) and that a large number (nearly 40% get guns from friends and family; again see BOJ statistics). Deterring that with further measures would be a good idea. If only illegal guns were the problem, then things would be much better. That's not the case though. Illegal guns were about one third I believe (check BOJ for exact numbers). That's still a lot, but stopping people from getting guns illegally seems like it would be more difficult than making sure legal guns don't end up committing crimes.

I have nothing left to say. No one here agrees and some even mock using actual evidence and citing sources. I'm not interested in discussion with these types of people. For the record, we own guns. I've seen people close to me buy/sell/trade guns like they're trading cards. They aren't the only ones.
 
Last edited:
Top