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.
The genie is out of the bag on this one. There are so many guns out there in so many hands, that trying to limit them in any way would be like peeing in the ocean.
I think a more reasonable long term approach may be to make military service mandatory for everyone when they graduate high school. For every 2 years you serve, you get 1 year of paid college,
The service would 'weed out' a large portion of idiots and psychos and their names would go into the gun registry as such so they could never buy one.
On the other hand, those that serve honorably would, at their request, be issued a side arm and a permit to carry on discharge.
Nothing is perfect but now you have a better list of people that should not have a fire arm and hopefully, a bunch of level headed people that are armed and know how to use it.
People don't appose smart guns. The problem is that the current "smart" guns are really stupid. They malfunction more times than they work.
For the government to mandate that we have to have smart guns NOW is ludicrous. Let the people and the market decide. If the smart gun technology matures enough, it will be adopted by many. If certain people won't choose smart guns then, it's OK too.
In the meantime, we still trust the old mechanics.
Also guns have long shelf life - guns made a few hundred years back are still functioning perfectly today. So what do we do with 300 million guns in existence? Confiscation?
I wouldn't suggest that. I do think that this emerging technology is worth developing, though.
What if Russian hackers or the CIA manage to disable your smart gun? What if the ruling class decides that the masses are getting uppity and need to be disarmed at the push of a button?
I'm pretty agnostic about the whole gun issue, but I'm going to side with the gun rights crowd on this one.
What if Russian hackers or the CIA manage to disable your smart gun? What if the ruling class decides that the masses are getting uppity and need to be disarmed at the push of a button?
I'm pretty agnostic about the whole gun issue, but I'm going to side with the gun rights crowd on this one.
If you think I am opposed to gun rights, you are mistaken. I am not, although I do think more extensive background checks are a good idea. I was just wondering why some people are opposed to smart guns, and I got some good answers. I still think the technology if worth developing, for those who want it.
The genie is out of the bag on this one. There are so many guns out there in so many hands, that trying to limit them in any way would be like peeing in the ocean.
I think a more reasonable long term approach may be to make military service mandatory for everyone when they graduate high school. For every 2 years you serve, you get 1 year of paid college,
The service would 'weed out' a large portion of idiots and psychos and their names would go into the gun registry as such so they could never buy one.
On the other hand, those that serve honorably would, at their request, be issued a side arm and a permit to carry on discharge.
Nothing is perfect but now you have a better list of people that should not have a fire arm and hopefully, a bunch of level headed people that are armed and know how to use it.
I was in favor of Universal Military Training 60 years ago, and I still am.
To amplify the idea presented above, upon graduating from Basic Training, each person will be issued a "smart" rifle and pistol, and 200 rounds of ammunition. They will be expected to keep those weapons, and maintain proficiency in their use, for the rest of their lives, as members of the Unorganized Militia in accordance with 10 United States Code. They must maintain their ammunition stockpile at 200 rounds or more for each weapon. They will be expected to send annual reports to the Director of Civilian Marksmanship detailing their proficiency practice (yes, the DCM IS an actual part of the Federal Government!) and number of rounds fired.
This question was inspired by another thread here, but it's not really part of that thread.
Why do people oppose "smart" guns, which can only be fired by authorized users? Seems to me like a good way to keep children from accidentally shooting someone, or to prevent an intruder from killing a homeowner with that person's own firearm?
I am not asking to start an argument, I just honestly want to know if there are any good arguments against this technology.
sounds to me that if the tech exists there is likley a market for it.
it could have a bunch of flavors to make it even better.
this is something that will clearly happen in most places around the world but it will take time.
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.
