U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 05-12-2014, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,194 posts, read 17,692,612 times
Reputation: 7980

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Ultimately, the final say on whether these new "smart guns" become the norm or not rests with the gun lobby. As anti-gunners don't purchase firearms, the only people who can support this technology is those people who do. As such, if hunters, sport shooters, enthusiasts and the NRA do not purchase any new weapons with this technology, it will disappear altogether in short order.
That's the "the market will sort it out" argument, and normally, I'd agree with you.

But laws are being written (and were written a long time ago) MANDATING this technology. Market forces disappear when the law removes all other options.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2014, 01:11 PM
 
7,282 posts, read 8,388,233 times
Reputation: 11407
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
A couple of notes on that paragraph.

First, brake technology has been steadily developed and improved over the past 100 years. It is VERY well proven technology.
Agreed, however that didn't stop brakes from being created and put into manufacturing. We didn't wait 100 years before using brakes did we?.
Second, the debate isn't about the tech being available, it's about the tech being mandatory. There's a very big difference, and states (e.g. NJ) have already passed laws making it mandatory.

Also agreed to a point. Gun owners have resisted smart gun technology instead of being part of the forces that help design the technology. Basically, we sat it out until it showed up and then started complaining about it. If all we ever do is resist we will find ourselves on the losing end, it always ends up that way. Time is not our friend, time is on the side of those wishing to take away rights.

Third, this new tech has nothing to do with improving the product or making it more reliable. It's about controlling access to it.

That doesn't make sense to me. If we see only the control side of it and therefore say it is bad, then we'll simply lose. We can't stop technology no matter how much we try. It is here to stay. If someone wants a smartgun, who is anyone else to say they can't have it? That is as bad as those who want to take away all guns.

Let's go back to your brake pedal analogy for a minute. Let's make it more of an apples to apples comparison - in order for the brake system in your car to work, you must be wearing the appropriate bracelet.

So you're cruising down the highway at 75mph, when a moose jumps in front of your car. You slam on the brakes, but nothing happens. You hit the moose, and you and the moose both die.

What happened? Your bracelet failed, just when you really needed it. Maybe the RFID chip got broken when you bumped it while reaching for your beverage. Maybe there was some RF interference in the area and the receiver didn't get the signal. It doesn't really matter why it failed, though - you're dead.

Aren't your forgetting something? In order to drive that car and use those brakes, you must already obtain a driver license, purchase insurance and then you must have a key or as they have now, electronic keys before you can drive the car. You must also register the car so that if you hit and run, someone can use the license plate you must display so that at the very least, the car and owner of it can be identified.

That is hardly apples to apples but it was your choice of the analogy. I say otherwise, that gun ownership and access to owned firearms is a right and that right isn't only for those who want a gun without "smart" technology built in but also for those that do.

The resistance is about an unnecessary innovation that will eventually become mandatory nationwide. It will add to the cost of guns (which is already pretty high), it will add to the weight, and I guarantee that it WILL result in the deaths of some gun owners or their loved ones, as they won't be able to defend themselves when they need to.

That same argument is what we as gun owners despise when it comes from gun control people. Suddenly we get to say a technology is unnecessary. We can't have it all ways. There are people who say guns are unnecessary. We we claim to be only people that get to decide what technology is necessary and what is not, I say we are hypocrites and have little to say about those with whom we disagree.


New Jersey disagrees with you, and they feel so strongly about it that they passed a law mandating it a full decade before the first one hit the market.

New Jersey isn't the USA, only a part of it. How many times, right on this forum have there been posts about "well here in Texas..." or fill in the blank with the favorite state when it comes to complaints about the restrictive laws in California for example. Basically, it would seem that so long as you can own a gun and carry in Texas, to heck with the rest of the country. Nice. The answer as has been said so many times on other topics such as when other states have enacted restrictive gun control measures is " well, move". I hardly think that is the answer but as gun owners go, few could care what happens outside of their state, just so long as they can have theirs. Well, here comes NJ with a law that says to the effect that as soon as a smartgun is available, all guns in NJ must have it.


Unfortunately, I have to agree. I fully believe that there will eventually be some sort of federal law mandating this tech, but I will fight it tooth and nail the whole way.
Yes, and that is the risky part. If we fight this technology, we will lose, there is no question about that. People fought seat belts too, yet we all have them now. People fought all kinds of laws but they got enacted anyway. You can't change the engine in your car for an engine older than the car model year unless it meets federal emission control regulations. In some states, you can change to a different engine of the same model year. The laws got passed no matter much complaining there was.

Instead of fighting it, we should as gun owners and those organizations acting as champions for gun owners, invest in the development of the technology. If we do not, guess who will? The gun control people and they will succeed.

The idea of a bracelet or other external device of course doesn't make sense but then lots of things didn't before they were fully developed and everyone started using them, these forums are proof of that. We should embrace the technology so that it gets developed as an option and an option that works.

If we think that restrictions on the types of guns we can own isn't going to progress toward smart guns, we have many laws already that prove it will happen. There are laws that prohibit you from owning or even possessing certain types of firearms and certain types of ammunition.

My opinion is that we have a choice, either have something to do with the development of the technology and how it is implemented or wait around on the defense to fight the losing battle because always waiting for the other side to make a move hasn't exactly been shown to work very well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,194 posts, read 17,692,612 times
Reputation: 7980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Yes, and that is the risky part. If we fight this technology, we will lose, there is no question about that. People fought seat belts too, yet we all have them now. People fought all kinds of laws but they got enacted anyway. You can't change the engine in your car for an engine older than the car model year unless it meets federal emission control regulations. In some states, you can change to a different engine of the same model year. The laws got passed no matter much complaining there was.

Instead of fighting it, we should as gun owners and those organizations acting as champions for gun owners, invest in the development of the technology. If we do not, guess who will? The gun control people and they will succeed.

The idea of a bracelet or other external device of course doesn't make sense but then lots of things didn't before they were fully developed and everyone started using them, these forums are proof of that. We should embrace the technology so that it gets developed as an option and an option that works.

If we think that restrictions on the types of guns we can own isn't going to progress toward smart guns, we have many laws already that prove it will happen. There are laws that prohibit you from owning or even possessing certain types of firearms and certain types of ammunition.

My opinion is that we have a choice, either have something to do with the development of the technology and how it is implemented or wait around on the defense to fight the losing battle because always waiting for the other side to make a move hasn't exactly been shown to work very well.
Ok, honestly, I didn't read the whole thing. Responses placed inside of quotes is kind of a pet peeve of mine, and is terrible netiquette. I did get through about 1/2 or 2/3 of what you wrote inside the quote, though, and I only stopped because it seems that you've misinterpreted my position.

I'm not against the technology existing. Like I wrote in my last post, I would fully support your market-driven solution argument if that's what the issue was. It's not. States (and eventually fed.gov) has or will MANDATE the tech. THAT is what I'm fighting against. I really thought that I made that exceptionally clear in previous posts.

If you want a "smart" gun, knock yourself out. I might even buy one as a novelty, but I will NEVER carry one or rely on one for self defense.

Know what the most reliable machine in the world is? A lever. No moving parts. Nothing to break. The more you add to a machine, the more complex and unreliable it becomes. I can dig a hole with a shovel or an excavator. If my life depended on it, I'd use the shovel. It might be more work and take a lot longer, but I know that the shovel won't run out of fuel, throw a track, seize up or develop a hydraulic leak.

Wouldn't it suck if your wife died because the battery in her handgun was dead when she needed it?

Wouldn't you be ticked off if you wanted to buy a "dumb" gun for your wife, but were unable to because some state legislator jackass whom you've never met decided that you're safer if you can only buy a "smart" gun?

I'll reconsider my position about "smart guns" after every single law enforcement agency in the country has switched to them. If those charged with our protection (ha ha) aren't willing to trust their lives to them, then neither am I.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 04:37 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,615 posts, read 2,834,342 times
Reputation: 1910
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter View Post
The thing is, the latter won't be available. Look at the new law that New Jersey has already passed stating that "ALL guns will be personalized, within 3 years after smart guns are introduced." That tells me that once their foot is in the door, the old type, current guns, will be outlawed. I think that is where the most resistance is coming from. People see their advantage, but if it's the only gun you are allowed to own, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Well, you are talking about New Jersey. You should move to a Southern state.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 04:58 PM
 
7,282 posts, read 8,388,233 times
Reputation: 11407
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
Ok, honestly, I didn't read the whole thing. Responses placed inside of quotes is kind of a pet peeve of mine, and is terrible netiquette. I did get through about 1/2 or 2/3 of what you wrote inside the quote, though, and I only stopped because it seems that you've misinterpreted my position.

I'm not against the technology existing. Like I wrote in my last post, I would fully support your market-driven solution argument if that's what the issue was. It's not. States (and eventually fed.gov) has or will MANDATE the tech. THAT is what I'm fighting against. I really thought that I made that exceptionally clear in previous posts.

If you want a "smart" gun, knock yourself out. I might even buy one as a novelty, but I will NEVER carry one or rely on one for self defense.

Know what the most reliable machine in the world is? A lever. No moving parts. Nothing to break. The more you add to a machine, the more complex and unreliable it becomes. I can dig a hole with a shovel or an excavator. If my life depended on it, I'd use the shovel. It might be more work and take a lot longer, but I know that the shovel won't run out of fuel, throw a track, seize up or develop a hydraulic leak.

Wouldn't it suck if your wife died because the battery in her handgun was dead when she needed it?

Wouldn't you be ticked off if you wanted to buy a "dumb" gun for your wife, but were unable to because some state legislator jackass whom you've never met decided that you're safer if you can only buy a "smart" gun?

I'll reconsider my position about "smart guns" after every single law enforcement agency in the country has switched to them. If those charged with our protection (ha ha) aren't willing to trust their lives to them, then neither am I.
That the technology needs to be proved reliable is agreed upon and I would never suggest one buy a smart gun at all, just that they should be available and let the market figure it out.

Anything involving technology can fail. People are killed everyday because technology failed, from car engines shutting off to traffic lights doing crazy things.

The concerns about the electronics in a gun not working when they need to and that being a reason the technology isn't suitable or needed can be applied to everything. When you turn off your stove before retiring you hope it remains off, yet people are killed every year because a coffee pot started by itself, a heater failed to turn off at the set temperature, the stove really didn't turn off and so on, yet people buy these things without thinking too much about them.

There is no doubt that a lot of development work needs to be done before smart gun technology becomes acceptable for routine use but as the story illustrates, going after the gun dealer for merely attempting to offer them for sale doesn't help anyone, in fact it harms.

As many of us know, votes are a strange thing and laws we'd never dream would pass do. A great disservice was done by harassing the gun dealer. Perhaps someone would have bought one and then discovered it really didn't work. That would have made huge news. As it is, the news wasn't about the smart gun, it was about the threats made against the shop owner. No one knows if those threats were plants, for all anyone knows, it was gun control people who made them but the story got reported otherwise.

Most of us go to sleep at night protected by smoke and carbon monoxide detectors because as strange as it sounds, sometimes in the middle of the night, a house burns to the ground and everyone was asleep and no one touched a thing. The failed technology somewhere was probably responsible.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 08:55 PM
Status: "King of the World" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Itinerant
5,191 posts, read 3,748,353 times
Reputation: 4068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
That the technology needs to be proved reliable is agreed upon and I would never suggest one buy a smart gun at all, just that they should be available and let the market figure it out.

Anything involving technology can fail. People are killed everyday because technology failed, from car engines shutting off to traffic lights doing crazy things.

The concerns about the electronics in a gun not working when they need to and that being a reason the technology isn't suitable or needed can be applied to everything. When you turn off your stove before retiring you hope it remains off, yet people are killed every year because a coffee pot started by itself, a heater failed to turn off at the set temperature, the stove really didn't turn off and so on, yet people buy these things without thinking too much about them.

There is no doubt that a lot of development work needs to be done before smart gun technology becomes acceptable for routine use but as the story illustrates, going after the gun dealer for merely attempting to offer them for sale doesn't help anyone, in fact it harms.

As many of us know, votes are a strange thing and laws we'd never dream would pass do. A great disservice was done by harassing the gun dealer. Perhaps someone would have bought one and then discovered it really didn't work. That would have made huge news. As it is, the news wasn't about the smart gun, it was about the threats made against the shop owner. No one knows if those threats were plants, for all anyone knows, it was gun control people who made them but the story got reported otherwise.

Most of us go to sleep at night protected by smoke and carbon monoxide detectors because as strange as it sounds, sometimes in the middle of the night, a house burns to the ground and everyone was asleep and no one touched a thing. The failed technology somewhere was probably responsible.
here's a question... Was the gun dealer harassed by gun owners? If he was he was being harassed by his customers (people who do not own guns are not customers of gun dealers), which would be market forces. While the specific action wasn't warranted, the cause of the action was indeed market forces.

The rest ...
Wow, talk about a bunch of false analogies.

If you're sleeping, and have a smart gun, is it more or less likely to go off than if you have just a regular gun? (answer truthfully)

However if you're in a situation where you need to use your gun, is a smartgun less or more likely to work when you need it too? (answer truthfully)

Function
Lets get specific, identifier bracelets, need an RF transceiver to ping for a responder chip and read the data back. So what's stopping someone creating a disabler? If you overload the receiver, the receiver cannot identify a response signal, and the gun fails to operate. Can you see any benefit for any segment of society to have these (I can think of several).

Biometrics, need an optical reader to identify a fingerprint (most likely), which fingerprint? What if one arm is disabled when using the firearm and that arm happens to have that finger and fingerprint? What happens if the finger is shot off? Retinal scans, and even DNA have the similar issues. Even less serious, suppose you have mud, or dust, or oil on your fingers.

How do you know that the electronics haven't got some backdoor to disable them, can you recognize for instance a miniature RF circuit by sight? The several segments of society I can think of will know of it and exploit it for months before there's any official announcement. Now the 2nd Amendment recognizes that we have the right to self defense, against any aggressor who we feel is behaving in such a way as to threaten our existence, the courts (or whoever) can later will figure out whether the actions were warranted or not. So tyrannical government...? How can we use one of the documented purposes of the 2nd Amendment, if we give that government the facility to disable the described tool to defend against them? I can go on all day with this one.

Generally, needs a power source. Have you ever shot at -60F? How well do you think batteries work at that temperature (even lithium batteries?) it may be a fringe case, but it's still a use case. Ever dropped any electronics in the bathtub, toilet, basin, or any other water? Ever had any electronics outside of your rain jacket during pelting rain (like for instance a rifle when hunting). Have you ever delivered a 50g shock to your electronics (like dropping a phone or laptop)? How did any of these work out for you? The shock is the one that's the big one though, because by it's very operation a gun will deliver a high g shock to the electronics on firing, and do you know one of the devices that's most sensitive to shock? Optical devices.

More on power and or system fails, does the system fail safe, or not? Failing safe means that the firearm is in a safe state, you can haul on the trigger for all you're worth and it's at best going to push out a small red flag with the word "bang!" on it in a blocky font.

Security
How would a smartgun prohibit someone removing the "smart" and render the firearm useless? Is that a design goal, if not, then how is a smartgun any "safer" than a gun?

How would a smartgun be paired with it's owner? How can we maintain the current means of self building while also requiring smartguns, yet also prevent anyone reprogramming any smartgun at any time for any purpose for example if stolen?

If a gun is paired at the manufacturer with an RF dongle, then by what means can owners easily identify which dongle applies to which gun, yet still be secure so that unapproved users cannot steal all of them. (Note: Dongle means any electronic device or tag that is needed to make a device or application operate, so a wristband or key fob would be a dongle).

If one dongle (or biometrics) can pair with multiple guns, then by what mechanism and who can pair, if the user can pair, then there is no security, if the user cannot pair you've just created a de facto registry since the pairing service must maintain a list of who paired what for legal reasons, and to enable discovery of illegal pairing.

If multiple dongles (or biometrics) can pair with a single gun, then by what mechanism etc. (see above)

How could police commandeer firearms from the public and have them work? If they have an override device or code, then this would be a high value device and prone to theft. How would firearms have the override keys periodically updated for blacklisted keys for those stolen or lost?
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules Infractions & Deletions Who's the moderator? FAQ What is a "Personal Attack" What is "Trolling" Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Spots Wyoming
18,696 posts, read 35,428,561 times
Reputation: 2147483647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneyus View Post
Well, you are talking about New Jersey. You should move to a Southern state.
Huh???? I don't live in New Jersey. Moving has what to do with this conversation? If one state adopts the law, it won't be long before California and other states pick up on it. I live in a pretty good state when it comes to gun laws. Well, as long as we can keep the feds at bay.
__________________
[B][COLOR="Red"]"No Copyrighted Material."[/COLOR][/B]
[URL="http://www.city-data.com/"][COLOR="SeaGreen"]CD Home page[/COLOR][/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forumtos.html"][COLOR="seagreen"]TOS (Terms of Service)[/COLOR][/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/faq/107997-search-function-using-search-function.html"][COLOR="SeaGreen"]How to Search,[/COLOR][/URL] [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/faq/"][COLOR="SeaGreen"]FAQ's[/COLOR][/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/faq/70589-guide-guide-city-data-posting.html"][COLOR="SeaGreen"]Guide[/COLOR][/URL]
[URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/wyoming/"]Wyoming[/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/montana/"]Montana[/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/north-dakota/"]North Dakota[/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/south-dakota/"]South Dakota[/URL], [URL="http://www.city-data.com/forum/guns-hunting/"]Guns and Hunting[/URL]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
16,174 posts, read 27,443,108 times
Reputation: 11838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
The market place should decide if someone can sell a smartgun or whatever they call it. If the store owner was threatened, then what does that say about all this?

I think the story is more about that aspect than the technology. Sooner or later the technology will improve and we already trust our lives to technology in every bit as critical a circumstance as using a firearm for defense. Every time you step on the brake pedal in your car as you stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk you are trusting technology to stop your car so that you don't run over and kill the person walking in front of your car.

A smartgun doesn't by itself infringe on anyone's rights. Whether or not one decides it is a good technology is for the individual to decide, not others for them. The technology is here to stay, it isn't going away and only the uninformed think pretending it won't continue to evolve and eventually be made available on a general basis are afraid of it. Instead, defining the standards of performance should be at the top of the list.

If stopping the advancements of smart gun technology is something to aspire to, then what does that say about those who hold certain rights true and others not so much?

It is hypocritical of the gun owning community to abhor one technology but embrace others. The only reason we aren't all relegated to using flint locks is because of advancements in technology.

Perhaps it is time to get ahead of the curve and have input into the development of the technology because otherwise it will come along anyway and we might not like the result. Not liking it isn't going to change anything, it is on the way.
Smart gun technology has nothing to do with "the market," and just in case that you missed (it was all over the news), here it is for you:

Eric Holder wants gun owners to wear 'smart gun' bracelets | The Daily Caller
Quote:
Attorney General Eric Holder wants to explore “common sense” gun reforms, like mandating that gun owners would have to wear bracelets before they could activate their firearms.

Holder made his remarks while testifying before a U.S. House of Representatives appropriations committee on Friday. He acknowledged the existence of the Second Amendment, which gives people the unqualified right to own and carry weapons, but nevertheless expressed support for several gun control measures that he described as “common sense reforms,” according to The Washington Free Beacon.



Read more: Eric Holder wants gun owners to wear 'smart gun' bracelets | The Daily Caller
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 09:09 AM
 
7,282 posts, read 8,388,233 times
Reputation: 11407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
here's a question... Was the gun dealer harassed by gun owners? If he was he was being harassed by his customers (people who do not own guns are not customers of gun dealers), which would be market forces. While the specific action wasn't warranted, the cause of the action was indeed market forces.

The rest ...
Wow, talk about a bunch of false analogies.

If you're sleeping, and have a smart gun, is it more or less likely to go off than if you have just a regular gun? (answer truthfully)

However if you're in a situation where you need to use your gun, is a smartgun less or more likely to work when you need it too? (answer truthfully)

Function
Lets get specific, identifier bracelets, need an RF transceiver to ping for a responder chip and read the data back. So what's stopping someone creating a disabler? If you overload the receiver, the receiver cannot identify a response signal, and the gun fails to operate. Can you see any benefit for any segment of society to have these (I can think of several).

Biometrics, need an optical reader to identify a fingerprint (most likely), which fingerprint? What if one arm is disabled when using the firearm and that arm happens to have that finger and fingerprint? What happens if the finger is shot off? Retinal scans, and even DNA have the similar issues. Even less serious, suppose you have mud, or dust, or oil on your fingers.

How do you know that the electronics haven't got some backdoor to disable them, can you recognize for instance a miniature RF circuit by sight? The several segments of society I can think of will know of it and exploit it for months before there's any official announcement. Now the 2nd Amendment recognizes that we have the right to self defense, against any aggressor who we feel is behaving in such a way as to threaten our existence, the courts (or whoever) can later will figure out whether the actions were warranted or not. So tyrannical government...? How can we use one of the documented purposes of the 2nd Amendment, if we give that government the facility to disable the described tool to defend against them? I can go on all day with this one.

Generally, needs a power source. Have you ever shot at -60F? How well do you think batteries work at that temperature (even lithium batteries?) it may be a fringe case, but it's still a use case. Ever dropped any electronics in the bathtub, toilet, basin, or any other water? Ever had any electronics outside of your rain jacket during pelting rain (like for instance a rifle when hunting). Have you ever delivered a 50g shock to your electronics (like dropping a phone or laptop)? How did any of these work out for you? The shock is the one that's the big one though, because by it's very operation a gun will deliver a high g shock to the electronics on firing, and do you know one of the devices that's most sensitive to shock? Optical devices.

More on power and or system fails, does the system fail safe, or not? Failing safe means that the firearm is in a safe state, you can haul on the trigger for all you're worth and it's at best going to push out a small red flag with the word "bang!" on it in a blocky font.

Security
How would a smartgun prohibit someone removing the "smart" and render the firearm useless? Is that a design goal, if not, then how is a smartgun any "safer" than a gun?

How would a smartgun be paired with it's owner? How can we maintain the current means of self building while also requiring smartguns, yet also prevent anyone reprogramming any smartgun at any time for any purpose for example if stolen?

If a gun is paired at the manufacturer with an RF dongle, then by what means can owners easily identify which dongle applies to which gun, yet still be secure so that unapproved users cannot steal all of them. (Note: Dongle means any electronic device or tag that is needed to make a device or application operate, so a wristband or key fob would be a dongle).

If one dongle (or biometrics) can pair with multiple guns, then by what mechanism and who can pair, if the user can pair, then there is no security, if the user cannot pair you've just created a de facto registry since the pairing service must maintain a list of who paired what for legal reasons, and to enable discovery of illegal pairing.

If multiple dongles (or biometrics) can pair with a single gun, then by what mechanism etc. (see above)

How could police commandeer firearms from the public and have them work? If they have an override device or code, then this would be a high value device and prone to theft. How would firearms have the override keys periodically updated for blacklisted keys for those stolen or lost?
We don't know who make the threats, I already said that so the point is?

You are making a lot of assumptions starting from the beginning. First, it seems the only technology you discuss is some kind of bracelet or dongle sort of thing. Really, that isn't the current state of sensor technology and wouldn't be the one to survive in the market. That sorts of makes all the other comparisons and scenarios in your comment rather outside of the technology that will eventually become part of firearm design.

Lets take your comments one by one but first let me repeat that the technology requires development in order to be effective and that sitting idly by by it is developed, perhaps by those with a different agenda and end game isn't very smart, the smart thing to do is get involved and insure the developed technology is the best, not worst it can be. Everyone wants to complain about laws but funny how so many that complain don't vote. I'm of the opinion that you can wait for someone to do something to you or be proactive and have a say in what happens. Isn't that one of the primary premise of gun ownership, being proactive? Why then only resist something that will happen and then rue the day that the opportunities to create a better solution was spent complaining about it.

Then to answering truthfully, sure, lets also ask some honest questions, what do you say? Given you needed to mention more than once the request to answer truthfully, I'll say in response that most of the questions are baseless, and that is truthful, nevertheless:

1."If you're sleeping, and have a smart gun, is it more or less likely to go off than if you have just a regular gun? (answer truthfully)"

That would depend wouldn't it? If the purpose of the smart technology is to prevent unauthorized people from firing the gun, then it would be less likely because if you are asleep and as happens often enough to be reported in the news, intruders manage to walk around the home without being discovered and even abduct children or murder people, of course, less likely to be fired. If the question deals only with the gun as an inert object or tool until used by the person owning it, then neither. Kind of simple I think.

2. "However if you're in a situation where you need to use your gun, is a smartgun less or more likely to work when you need it too? (answer truthfully)"

No one really knows since the technology isn't offered to the general public. The question itself is nonsense because it is the same as asking if a poorly designed and manufactured gun is less or more likely to work when you need it to work. Again, if the technology is properly developed and proved reliable, it will gain the "trust" as any other tool people use. There are guns I wouldn't trust to load much less depend on for self defense and they have no smart technology built into them. Would you trust every gun ever designed and manufactured to work when you need it? Answer using your own criteria for judging answers.

3. "Lets get specific, identifier bracelets, need an RF transceiver to ping for a responder chip and read the data back. So what's stopping someone creating a disabler? If you overload the receiver, the receiver cannot identify a response signal, and the gun fails to operate. Can you see any benefit for any segment of society to have these (I can think of several)."

I do not advocate identifier bracelets, RF transceivers so that really doesn't matter. The other part of the question, what stops someone from creating a disabler is on it's face poorly formulated. Disablers exist for everything know to human beings. Think about that. Now think about this: take your "disabler" idea (although that assumes limiting the technology to only what you happen to know about), first, someone would have to know exactly what gun you had down to the brand, model and so on. That is risky since they probably don't have a disabler for your knife, ball bat, taser or any other defensive tools you might have available including any security systems alerting you to their presence so that you aren't sleeping in bed as they break into your home.

To the benefit to certain segments of society having a disabler, it isn't like cracking into a mobile phone, here, the individual with the disabler is praying it works and you gun does not or that you have only one gun vulnerable to that disabler or that you don't have a knife, machete, ball bat, tire iron or something else at the ready as you wait on the other side of the door they are about to open.

In order for your scenario to be valid, a lot of assumptions have to be true such as I've already pointed out. If all of those assumptions are valid, then no gun in the world is going to help you, the criminal has got you and you are toast.


4. "Biometrics, need an optical reader to identify a fingerprint (most likely), which fingerprint? What if one arm is disabled when using the firearm and that arm happens to have that finger and fingerprint? What happens if the finger is shot off? Retinal scans, and even DNA have the similar issues. Even less serious, suppose you have mud, or dust, or oil on your fingers.

Is this the part where truthful answers come into play? Ok...if in the heat of the moment, your arm is disabled, use the other one? Hmmm, seems to be pretty understandable that if you were to be able to use one of your hands with a smartgun you'd insure you could use the other one too, just like any other gun.

If your finger gets shots off? Really? Ok, see the above.


If you happen to have mud, dust or oil on your fingers, I'd say you probably aren't at home sleeping but more to the point, there are sensors now that can account for mud, dust and oil. Back to development of the technology...again. Come on.

Since when do biometrics need an optical reader? If you limit your knowledge to what you already know, not much I can say except learn more. There are biometric readers that do not need optical sensors and most in fact do not use optics to read biometrics. Rentinal scans? Surely that isn't a technology that would survive in the market so lets get back to reality.


5. Then your combined questions about power and so on. You already rely on powered devices to protect your family and yourself don't you? Do you change the battery in your smoke alarm? I bet you do and I bet you trust your life to them as well. If you don't, I need to invoke that honesty clause in the discussion. Regardless, people fly in airplanes, drive cars and participate in many other activities that have powered components to the activity and trust with their lives that the powered components work.

As to the "backdoor", did you read what I wrote? Specifically, I've stated several times that the technology should be developed by those with a vested interest in making the technology reliable, safe and to operate within the parameters best suited to gun owners that want such guns. Really though, if you have a phone, an Internet connected security system or camera, it can already be hacked into by the government. If they are that concerned about you, they will wait until you are in the toilet and then come to get you.

Like I said, the means to improve the technology exist and there are passive technologies than can if developed, overcome the problems of self contained active power systems.

Fail safe. The technology doesn't need to change any existing safety systems in the design. End of story.

Shooting at -60 degrees. I invoke the honesty clause. In a personal self defense situation, please cite how many times, if ever documented, a private citizen needed to use their gun in self defense. I'm calling you out on that question.



6. How would a smartgun prohibit someone removing the "smart" and render the firearm useless? Is that a design goal, if not, then how is a smartgun any "safer" than a gun?

There is no such thing as a "safe" gun, I learned that before I was ever allowed to handle a firearm, as taught by my Father when I was a little boy. Treat every gun as loaded. The design goal is determined by those developing the technology, like I said, you can complain about it or influence the design, yo have the choice. Sit around and wait long enough and you'll get what someone else decides you'll get.

The safe part comes from the link between the brain and the trigger finger. Who said a smart gun was safer than any other gun? I didn't.


7. The remainder of your questions:

You are asking the wrong person. I suggest you start learning more than you know about technology to find those answers because others are already doing so. In your questions, you've tried to imply I am an advocate for smart technology, good try but not accurate. I do not recommend nor advocate for smart technology in guns, I simply point out that the technology is being developed, it will find its way into the market, people will buy them if they want and some laws will be created addressing the use and that if all gun owners do it sit around and whine like babies about this and that and say it will never happen, good for them, it will with or without them. Gun owners have a choice, either individually or as part of groups or associations, to get involved and help insure the technology does what it should as opposed to waiting for those you disagree with to figure it out for you.

It's your choice. Be someone who influences the technology development or be someone influenced. Complain and resist something that will happen or be part of the development. Buy it or not. It is all your choice.

I do maintain that if gun owners think trying to limit choice is the way to go, that will be turned around on them because it goes against the very foundation of what this is all about, choice. You can't demand rights and choice on one hand and then turn around and deny it with the other. That is hypocrisy and there is plenty of that to go around.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 09:27 AM
 
7,282 posts, read 8,388,233 times
Reputation: 11407
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter View Post
The thing is, the latter won't be available. Look at the new law that New Jersey has already passed stating that "ALL guns will be personalized, within 3 years after smart guns are introduced." That tells me that once their foot is in the door, the old type, current guns, will be outlawed. I think that is where the most resistance is coming from. People see their advantage, but if it's the only gun you are allowed to own, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Laws created can be changed in the same way they were created. The resistance (IMO) comes from those who do not become actively involved but sit on the sidelines waiting for things to happen and then complaining when those things happen to them.

Our history is replete with examples of people saying they don't like things, don't support things but failing to vote or get involved to insure their best interests are maintained.

If a law passed in NJ stating as you cited (no reason to say otherwise), then that means more people who believed such a law to be a good thing got out and voted and the rest of everyone else sat around at the gun shops complaining about it instead of doing something.

Many gun owners are of the live and let live style of life. Life doesn't work that way because others ascribe to the idea that live and dictate to others works best. They are usually right. I am sure, that like me you've had the chance to go into a local gun store where you find the same chewing the fat talkers complaining about gun rights and so on. The usual suspects, they manage to be there all the time with their empty styrofoam cups, emptied of coffee hours before, buying little, telling stories and settling into that uncomfortable silence when someone who actually wants to buy something takes the attention away from them as the store owner deals with the paying customer. If they put some of that time and effort into doing something to insure gun ownership rights were made stronger things would be much different.

The law in NJ could be changed, doubtful it will be because it is easier to let such a law stand and complain about it than get out, petition the public and then with numbers, demand and succeed not only in repealing that law but doing so with such large numbers that any politician would rather jump into the Passaic River and drink a few gallons than ever bring it up again.

Gun owners in NJ deserve better but if they are unwilling to stand up for themselves, then so be it.

California is in the same boat.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top