Renewed Push for Smart Guns

[Ballistic147]

Admin Edit-
This topic can be discussed WITHOUT general political commentary and discussion.
I'm quite concerned about the technology, so I want you to be aware of it.
I don't think we need to get too far into the tinfoil to see some potential problems for freedom in the future.
THINK about it-
a car with lojack can be tracked AND disabled from a remote location.....

Lee J

/////////////////////////////

the original post:


They're at it again. Not that I'm against technology but this would greatly increase the cost of firearms and could cause a potential failure at a time when a firearm is needed in a life or death situation.

Obama announces new steps to curb gun violence | Fox News

"These common-sense steps are not going to prevent every tragedy, but what if they prevented even one?" Obama wrote in a Facebook post. "We should be doing everything we can to save lives and spare families the pain and unimaginable loss too many Americans have endured."

[jag312]

I doubt that the technology for reliable smart guns is available today. but I think smart guns will be common in the future. The key word is "reliable". I don't think I will live long enough to see commercially available reliable smart guns.

[Ron M.]

Can smart guns fire dum-dums?

[NYlakesider]

A article about this was published in my local paper yesterday.. Of course this paper loves the idea!

It stated quite clearly that they want to implement this with the FEDERAL police. ( they did not define Federal police) If that is the case it seems like its a attempt to push this threw if it works, big if I know by saying if the cops use it all civilians must as its good for them.

I ran that by a friend of mine that is a Federal person authorized to carry and he said that is the dumbest thing he has heard in a long time coming out of Washington.

Speaking for me I seriously doubt most LEOs want to be burdened with something that could cost them their life when it fails. We know with something like this its not if its when and Murphys law will take precedent and it will happen at the worst possible time.

[JcMack]

I received these tidbits from the NRA this morning:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...-day-in-office

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...st-gun-control

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...elated-gun-ban

[Bad_Andy]

There was an interesting segment on 60 minutes late last year. It might be worth a watch if you are interested.

Is the U.S. ready for smart guns? - CBS News

[TTSH]

Originally Posted by Bad_Andy

There was an interesting segment on 60 minutes late last year. It might be worth a watch if you are interested.

Interesting, maybe. Pure anti-2A propaganda, absolutely.

[Sconnie]

I saw that segment on smart guns on 60 Minutes. I found it interesting that the politician who pushed through the Smart Gun requirement in NJ (I think) was backing off of her legislation because the anti gun advocates were discovering that they jumped the gun with a requirement for the guns once the first smart gun was for sale.

I find it interesting that they herald the technology for police that a bad guy cannot take a gun away and use it. But will all officers from all nearby jurisdictions be cleared for use. In a real dust up where officers from multiple jurisdictions get involved and officers are down will they only be able to use their own gun regardless of the need and availability of other officer's guns? Or not be able to use a long gun that might be available?

It is also interesting that they say it will cut suicides. Not sure why. If multiple users can be programed into a gun why would there be a change. I do see how it could help the little kid shooting issue but then again that is a problem only for people who are idiots and don't keep access to unmonitored kids to zero.

And cutting down on stolen guns being used...perhaps they are unaware of anything with a chip can be hacked if enough money is thrown at the problem. And the criminal element doesn't seem to lack money.

It is so funny about the gun dealer who was going to start selling a smart gun. I suspect the folks who envision NJ style laws requiring them could see the handwriting on the wall. At least that law jumping the gun served a purpose. And then they ponder where the opposition to smart guns is coming from. I wish it would be just a simple let the market decide issue.

[PatriotX]

I find nothing funny about 2A supporters threatening to kill and rape the shop owner.

[jlrhiner]

If you want to oppose the legislation, oppose it. Do it intelligently, and vigorously work against it. Each and every one of us (supporters of the 2nd) have the ability to try our best to educate our legislators about the issues presented.

Acting like an *** only re-inforces the stereotypes they already believe about us.

[Sconnie]

Originally Posted by PatriotX

I find nothing funny about 2A supporters threatening to kill and rape the shop owner.

Perhaps the wrong word. But rather than get worried about the inappropriate actions of others, I look at the bigger issue. I only know what I have read online about the NJ law passed in 2002. It is a bad law from my perspective and I would think anyone who wants access to the good old guns or the new fangled ones would not like it either.

If that shop owner had started selling smart guns in 2014 the law would have kicked in next year. And quoting part of the wiki:

"The amended bill specifies that three years after it is determined that personalized handguns are available for retail purposes, it will be illegal for any registered or licensed firearms manufacturer or dealer to transport, sell, expose for sale, possess for sale, assign or transfer any handgun unless that handgun is a personalized handgun."

I am actually surprised that someone funded by the anti's did not open a shop specifically to sell the smart gun just to get the NJ law to kick in. Glad they didn't think of it, they certainly have no lack of funds.

Originally Posted by jlrhiner

Acting like an *** only re-inforces the stereotypes they already believe about us.

Yea, somehow I don't think much of anything re-enforcing the beliefs of the anti's will make a difference in the long run. Not trying to excuse bad behavior just being a realist.

[Kevin J.]

First let me say I do not believe the technology is currently available for a reliable and true smart gun.

With that said, what type of personal defense weapon (i.e. handgun) will be carried 50 years from now is probably impossible for most people to imagine (and no offense but I do include members of this forum, we are still discussing the reliabilty of semi autos, so not exactly open to change ). The way millennials live and use technology makes it inevitable that the same will happen to personal self defense weapons (I-Gun if you will) . I believe the current handgun will be viewed like a rotary land line phone is to a cell phone.

Just think about it for a moment and compare science fiction and future predictions. Star Trek communicator to cell phone, the phaser to the revolver.

Now will this have issues of reliabilty, hacking, ect. of course. The cell phone is way less secure than a land line (unless you are still using a party line, ) but it's something people have accepted for the convenience and and smart phone power. Yes paper mail is more secure that email, the list goes on.

Is the loss of these worth it? It appears to be to the vast majority of people. But that is another thread.

My two cents worth, it's about as much crystal ball I can afford. If I could see more I might have seen the Internet and Facebook coming.

[CS45Fan]

They been trying this for 30 years now and still can't get it right. Look at the iphone and the finger print password- still doesn't work 100% of the time (so am told - personally don't use it). Oh hell they can't even read your fingerprints right 100% time from those cards and they been doing that for 100 years.

I also don' think technology can withstand the recoil - especially over time. I've had several issues with "so called" quality lasers like Crimson Trace and LaserLyte.

It's a rat race of money hungry folks (some who come themselves 2nd amendment supporters - I call them traitors) to make a product the politicians are clambering for so they can be rich.

Cheers!

[PatriotX]

I believe it's been posted before, but until the technology is more reliable than the firearm to which it's attached, this is all a moot point.


At some future date, it WILL happen - Moore's Law pretty much guarantees it. At that point, the free-market will hopefully be the decider.


While my idealized future revolves around a resurgence and reverence of classic wheel- and leverguns, the truth is likely more bleak. A continued acceptance of pervasive 'technology' means future generations may have fewer aversions to firearms containing it.

[Sconnie]

Originally Posted by PatriotX

While my idealized future revolves around a resurgence and reverence of classic wheel- and leverguns, the truth is likely more bleak. A continued acceptance of pervasive 'technology' means future generations may have fewer aversions to firearms containing it.

I guess I would put revolvers in the category of a 57 Chey and they seem to be pretty popular in the right circles. Quite frankly until they come up with new ammo not based on the current system I suspect the current crop of guns and the classics will enjoy popularity.

Phasers set to stun would be interesting but having them capable of vaporizing would be problematic...

[Rivoak]

New opportunity for lawsuits. Homeowner killed defending family from home invaders when battery on smart gun depleted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[italiansport]

I have a question here: How is it that the most vehement anti-gun groups and media are the ones and that actively embrace "Smart gun" technology"? Just asking!
Jim

[c45man]

Originally Posted by italiansport

I have a question here: How is it that the most vehement anti-gun groups and media are the ones and that actively embrace "Smart gun" technology"? Just asking!
Jim

Because they want to narrow down your options for owning a firearm. Those pushing this pie in the sky technology would through legislation or executive order phase out mechanical firearm as we know them today. Eliminating future parts manufacturing and prohibiting firearm companies from repairing the mechanical guns. At least, that would be the goal of the antis, and it doesn't matter that it would take years to accomplish such.

At any rate, if one nerd could program a firearm to be exclusive to its owner, another nerd can de-program the sole user feature. If one part electronically interfaces with another part, it could be tricked.

And if this comes to pass, don't blame the leftists, they are what they are. Blame the collective 90 million firearm owners who refuse to become one issue voters that can control the congress and white house. We have become our own worst enemies.

[Wise_A]

My guns are very smart. Their operator and caretaker knows what he's doing.

On the "What if they saved just one?" logic:

The trouble is, we're making a law for something like 500 million people. The loss of one theoretical life is clearly not worth depriving hundreds of millions of people of their freedom. And if you consider the additional casualties you incur from people either killed by the technology failing, or killed because they were effectively disarmed by the technology, you're trading at a loss.

Originally Posted by c45man

And if this comes to pass, don't blame the leftists, they are what they are. Blame the collective 90 million firearm owners who refuse to become one issue voters that can control the congress and white house. We have become our own worst enemies.

Honestly? Blame hunters and trap guys. A lot of them are secretly elitists and turncoats. They'll regularly talk about how they don't see why someone "needs" a semiautomatic rifle or a 15-shot handgun.

[c45man]

Originally Posted by Wise_A

My guns are very smart. Their operator and caretaker knows what he's doing.

On the "What if they saved just one?" logic:

The trouble is, we're making a law for something like 500 million people. The loss of one theoretical life is clearly not worth depriving hundreds of millions of people of their freedom. And if you consider the additional casualties you incur from people either killed by the technology failing, or killed because they were effectively disarmed by the technology, you're trading at a loss.



Honestly? Blame hunters and trap guys. A lot of them are secretly elitists and turncoats. They'll regularly talk about how they don't see why someone "needs" a semiautomatic rifle or a 15-shot handgun.

You are right. But in the collective number includes casual handgun owners, carry permit holders, and even black gun owners that are not one issue voters and vote the straight democratic party line. I am not naïve enough to believe that the over 90 million I of speak of are all going to rally around the 2nd amendment candidate(s).

If fifty million became one issue voters we would not be worried about a majority of congress turning anti-gun nor would there be an Obama or Hillary in the white house. 50 million pro gun votes plus votes from conservatives that do not own guns would make the vast majority of candidates from either party think seriously regarding speaking ill of firearm owners or the second amendment.

I have read reports from both sides of the controversy that claim the pro gun crowd control 10 million votes in national elections. The antis in recent years refer to the collective gun owners voting influence as a paper tiger. Most of the time the pro gun vote does not become powerful until a draconian anti gun law gets passed. Then it is too late.