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.
I think the gun would be great for concealed carry or law enforcement applications where you truly wouldn't want anyone else using your firearm. As someone else mentioned, it wouldn't be a good idea at a house where you might grab a gun in a hurry. I don't understand strong resistance to this new technology as long as the latter is still available, but I'm just an enthusiast instead an NRA whackjob.
I think the gun would be great for concealed carry or law enforcement applications where you truly wouldn't want anyone else using your firearm. As someone else mentioned, it wouldn't be a good idea at a house where you might grab a gun in a hurry. I don't understand strong resistance to this new technology as long as the latter is still available, but I'm just an enthusiast instead an NRA whackjob.
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.
I think the gun would be great for concealed carry or law enforcement applications where you truly wouldn't want anyone else using your firearm. As someone else mentioned, it wouldn't be a good idea at a house where you might grab a gun in a hurry. I don't understand strong resistance to this new technology as long as the latter is still available, but I'm just an enthusiast instead an NRA whackjob.
But that's not the reason why Mr. Holder wants to create the new law. He is not interested the least about what gun owners may think about it. Gun laws apply only to law-abiding gun owners, not to criminals. Do you really believe that a criminal who wants to commit a crime with a gun is going to be restricted by a gun law? I imagine that your answer is "no," because the criminal does not give a hoot about any law. So the new law is only going to impose another restriction on law-abiding gun owners, and down the line all guns will have to fall into the same law, which will make the "dumb" guns illegal. No gun law affects the criminal sector of our population. If you don't want others to use your gun, don't let them, or just lock it up.
I just don't understand your blind adherence to another anti-gun law, one that will bite you on the rear.
Hopefully these guns will take the place of the other ones.
Hopefully these guns will never be imported into the United States. Our Constitution clears states what our rights are, and laws taking those rights away will not fly.
The only workable firearm control is firearm education. There should be no such thing as a firearms "Accident" except in the case of mechanical malfunction. Even then if reasonable safety rules are followed there should be no damage.
Education is the answer, not reliance on unenforceable laws or elaborate mechanical systems.
Just a few basic rules need to be kept in mind.
There is no such thing as an unloaded firearm or a gun safety that works. Every firearm should be considered loaded and ready to fire, it must always be pointed only at what you are willing to shoot. It must always be assumed a child will find it, if it is in a child accessible location.
Hopefully these guns will take the place of the other ones.
There you are. All crime will stop when licensed gun owners have "smart" firearms that require them to be wearing an associated bracelet before they can shoot--at an armed intruder who doesn't have one.
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.
I agree with the comments about the market sorting this out. But that assumes the market will be allowed to sort this out. As others have stated, that might not be the case if the choice is between smart gun or no gun.
One of the main impacts of smart gun legislation would make guns inaccessible to poorer people, though that very well might be the intention as the political, economic and social elites seem to think there should be different standards for them.
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 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.
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.
Third, this new tech has nothing to do with improving the product or making it more reliable. It's about controlling access to it.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
Whether or not one decides it is a good technology is for the individual to decide, not others for them.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
The technology is here to stay
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.
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.
As a hunter and sport shooter, I would never purchase one of these. I don't know anyone who would. If I go for my annual deer hunt and have something go wrong with my rifle, I can borrow one off one of the guys in camp and continue to enjoy my week. If have the same thing happen and everyone at camp has one of these silly bio-guns, my hunt is over and I'm back on the road home.
Don't want your kids shooting each other or some thief using your gun in a crime? Learn to be responsible, lock your gun in a safe, figure out how to use a trigger guard and educate your damned kids about firearm safety starting at an early age. If you are unable to do those things, then you should consider the possibility that you might just be too stupid to own a gun in the first place.
It really is that simple.
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 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.
There you are. All crime will stop when licensed gun owners have "smart" firearms that require them to be wearing an associated bracelet before they can shoot--at an armed intruder who doesn't have one.
