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.
Now that I am aware of it, I am vehemently opposed to there EVER being a smart gun sold in the US. Stupid laws like the one mentioned above will make owning a SAFE firearm illegal.
Now... let's throw something else out there. Civil war breaks out after States like NJ implement their ban on conventional firearms. The government (will NEVER be limited by such a law) wants to quell the people rising up against it and sets off EMP all over. The 2nd Amendment, the ability to throw off a tyrannical government was just destroyed.
No smart gun technology for me, EVER.
The above law is EXACTLY what I was referring to when I talk about people on your side of this issue. At first it's a choice... then it becomes mandatory. Incrementalism at disarming the population.
Sounds like a good argument against the NJ law, not the technology itself.
Sounds like a good argument against the NJ law, not the technology itself.
I made the argument against the tech in the same post. You and I don't have access to EMP strike capability, but you can bet your tail the government does.
Besides... what will prevent another similar law from being imposed AFTER the sale of a smart gun? Let's say at a national level? Nothing, that's what.
Before I would ever think about buying a "smart gun," I want to see all the law enforcement agencies and the entire U.S. Military switch over to this technology... It will never happen since that "technology" isn't 100% foolproof and they know it.
I don't fear my government or do I believe in any anti government conspiracy B.S. theories, but at the same time, I'm not willing to bet my life or the lives of my family memberson something that can rendered inoperative by using reverse "technology" by whomever.
Before I would ever think about buying a "smart gun," I want to see all the law enforcement agencies and the entire U.S. Military switch over to this technology... It will never happen since that "technology" isn't 100% foolproof and they know it.
I don't fear my government or do I believe in any anti government conspiracy B.S. theories, but at the same time, I'm not willing to bet my life or the lives of my family memberson something that can rendered inoperative by using reverse "technology" by whomever.
Our entire energy grid is dependent upon technology that could be rendered inoperative. So, should we try to improve the technology, or all give up electricity?
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.
let me put it to you this way, lets say you are armed with a "smart gun", and you are walking down the street with an acquaintance, someone NOT authorized to use your firearm. now lets say that for some reason you get into a gun fight with, lets say, two people, for what ever reason.
you are wounded and cant use the firearm, but since you have a smart gun, your acquaintance also cannot use the smart gun. thus you are now essentially unarmed. if that smart gun had been a run of the mill gun, your acquaintance could take up your defense with your gun.
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.
It has been discussed on this site multiple times.
Short answer, because it does NOT work.
Too many things can go wrong when a gun is needed.
It has to be able to be fired by more then 1 person.
If "bad guys" can hack the federal gov't agencies, your credit card, laptop, smart phone etc.what makes you think your "smart"' gun cannot be hacked?
let me put it to you this way, lets say you are armed with a "smart gun", and you are walking down the street with an acquaintance, someone NOT authorized to use your firearm. now lets say that for some reason you get into a gun fight with, lets say, two people, for what ever reason.
you are wounded and cant use the firearm, but since you have a smart gun, your acquaintance also cannot use the smart gun. thus you are now essentially unarmed. if that smart gun had been a run of the mill gun, your acquaintance could take up your defense with your gun.
I'm not claiming that they are a perfect solution. But it does seem that they have the potential to help prevent tragedies like that two-year-old who killed his brother, or prevent home intruders from using the homeowner's weapons against them, which has been known to happen.
I'm not claiming that they are a perfect solution. But it does seem that they have the potential to help prevent tragedies like that two-year-old who killed his brother, or prevent home intruders from using the homeowner's weapons against them, which has been known to happen.
there are far better ways to prevent issues like the ones you list here. smart guns are a stupid idea pushed by shortsighted people who generally never look at the large picture.
you want to improve gun safety, and that is a noble quest. but the best safety device ever created is right between a person ears, too bad too many people do not use that safety device.
and the best way to prevent criminals from using a homeowners gun against them is for the homeowner to use the gun first against the intruder, and for the locals to honor the homeowners instead of excoriate them.
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.
The only places there seems to be a problem, is the killing fields run by democrats.
The sea of red, doesn't see the need to make firearms anymore expensive than they are, so the poor cannot protect themselves from bullies.
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.
