CA gun shop backs off "smart gun" after huge NRA backlash (weapon, free speech)

[Gurbie]

Apparently, many gun owners think using "smart" microchip technology to make firearms safer is some kinda commie plot!

California store

So this technology might prevent a few hundred kids a year from blowing each others brains out- but what about muh freedums???

[Grsz11]

I didn't know anybody was forcing them to buy it. That is like being mad at the Internet because it violates the rights of newspapers. The NRA and their hysteria need to go away.

[thecoalman]

It's a good idea but it needs options like the ability to turn off the detection. This should never be mandatory.

[shooting4life]

Ill be waiting for the police to adopt these "smart" guns first...

I'll be waiting awhile.

I need my gun to work the first time evey time. Last thing I want to be doing to changing batteries or trying to find a watch while someone is breaking into my house.

Why take one of the simplist tools that has worked for centuries and make it more complicated.

[Frank DeForrest]

The only mention of the NRA is:

The National Rifle Association, a fierce opponent of smart-gun technology, did not return several requests for comment on whether it called Oak Tree

maybe edit your headline for accuracy?
Otherwise just sounds like consumers are exercising their right to free speech, no biggie.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

I need my gun to work the first time evey time. Last thing I want to be doing to changing batteries or trying to find a watch while someone is breaking into my house.

That's exactly why you need to be able to turn it off however there can be benefits for tech like this. Consider the possibilities.

• House wide system that will allow the gun to operate in the area, if it's stolen now it's a hunk of metal.
• Kill switch on the watch etc., someone is able to obtain your gun and is still in the house perhaps now you can turn it off.

As I said this can have benefits, it needs options like the ability to simply turn off the detection and should never be mandatory.

Edit: one last thing, no third party including the government can be allowed to interfere with the operation of the weapon.

[Frank DeForrest]

If people want such technology, let it be proven in the marketplace, but it should never be mandatory.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

That's exactly why you need to be able to turn it off however there can be benefits for tech like this. Consider the possibilities.

• House wide system that will allow the gun to operate in the area, if it's stolen now it's a hunk of metal.
• Kill switch on the watch etc., someone is able to obtain your gun and is still in the house perhaps now you can turn it off.

As I said this can have benefits, it needs options like the ability to simply turn off the detection and should never be mandatory.

That seems like a lot of money for very little if any real world gains.

Any system put into place like this would be easily circumvented, the gun is a very mechanical device, what ever would stop the gun from working would be easily removed or destroyed and gun will be functional. Just look at all the locks that have been installed on guns, they are removed all of the time, same goes for other so called "safety" features like magazine disconnects.

Any law requiring any of this nonsense that exempts the police has nothing to do with safety and everything about further regulating gun owners.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Gurbie

Apparently, many gun owners think using "smart" microchip technology to make firearms safer is some kinda commie plot!

It's the proposals that are leading to making this mandatory they would be against.

[Roaddog]

So some people on forums spoke out, isn't that what people on forums do? isn't that what you are doing? people who like the microchip will buy them, those who don't wont, it's not a big deal.