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.
Agree 100% that it would need to be able to be fired by more than one person, and that security issues would need to be sorted out. Still, I like the concept and think it is worth further development.
I have a sign on mu desk that reads, "He who falls behind technologically, will be LOST"
I am all for technology but, I see it YEARS away for guns.
2 major problems I see (there could be more):
1. I mentioned more then 1 person has to be able to fire the gun. A wife ., son, daughter, etc. how many can be allowed?
But, it could be more.
Suppose your have a friend you only see once every few years.
You might not remember to get his "priints" allowed on the gun, IF you allow them at all.
Again suppose he is visiting you and trh 2 of you are alone in the house.
Someone is breaking in. For some reason you cannot get to your locked gun.
Your friend cannot fire the gun. A problem.
2. if it is some sort of electronic safety devise it is going to need power. Probably a battery.
Many people forget to put a new battery in the smoke detectors.
They could forget to put new battery in the gun/s.
I've said it before: I am no expert on smart guns, and people have presented serious and legitimate concerns with the technology in its current state. Still...how good would it be to have a gun on the market that could not be mistakenly fired by a child, or used by a thief or other criminal against its owner? Seriously, if it could be made to work as intended, what's not to like about that?
"how good would it be to have a gun on the market that could not be mistakenly fired by a child,"
People come up with these, "what if" scenarios all the time.
How many people LOCK their cabinets/drawers where knives, bleach, dishwasher soap pads and other cleaning supplies are kept that children can get to?
To be totally safe, you would have to have locks on just about every drawer and cabinet in your kitchen, bathroom, etc.
Do you have a workshop in your basement, garage?
Do ypu have tools hanging up on a peg board, etc?
You could go on endlessly with "what if" scenarios which, IMO, are a waste of time.
I have a sign on mu desk that reads, "He who falls behind technologically, will be LOST"
I am all for technology but, I see it YEARS away for guns.
2 major problems I see (there could be more):
1. I mentioned more then 1 person has to be able to fire the gun. A wife ., son, daughter, etc. how many can be allowed?
But, it could be more.
Suppose your have a friend you only see once every few years.
You might not remember to get his "priints" allowed on the gun, IF you allow them at all.
Again suppose he is visiting you and trh 2 of you are alone in the house.
Someone is breaking in. For some reason you cannot get to your locked gun.
Your friend cannot fire the gun. A problem.
2. if it is some sort of electronic safety devise it is going to need power. Probably a battery.
Many people forget to put a new battery in the smoke detectors.
They could forget to put new battery in the gun/s.
If the battery is dead, so are you.
Those issues have been raised before. I acknowledged them then, and I still do, along with others you haven't listed. I've said as much over and over. Still doesn't mean the technology is not worth pursuing and trying to perfect, in order to deal with those issues. There are lots of things now part of everyday life that were right out of science fiction only a few decades ago. FWIW, the guns as they exist now can be set to recognize more than one user.
I'm not anti-gun, like some people have assumed, nor do I think it's desirable or even possible to require that all guns be smart guns. I simply think they could, one day, be a good option for people who want them. I'm not sure why that is so upsetting to so many people.
Mostly because it is 'smart.' The NRA prefers their followers dumb, easily controlled and obedient.
Most of us after reading garbage like this, "Mostly because it is 'smart.' The NRA prefers their followers dumb, easily controlled and obedient", KNOW who the "dumb" ones are.
Some posters just can't resist in showing how childish they are.
It stands to reason that weapons dependent on technology like this would be very vulnerable to disabling. Since it's electronic an EMP could disable all personal arms within it's area of influence. Some sort of directed frequency disruption, whatever. I'm betting it wouldn't be that tough to pull off. Just a simple signal interruption of some sort. EMP is pretty indiscriminate about the electrical/electronic gear it takes out.
Something as simple as a kid playing with an RC toy could do it in theory. I'll stick with my simple mechanical triggers, thanks. The bugs have been pretty well worked out of those. We KNOW they work.
Totally agree, which is likely one of the many reasons that the tech has not been used by the military or police. Until it is then it's just some quirky idea that has no right to be required by anyone. We test all kinds of stuff on our military from preserved foods to vaccines, it's kind of part of the job, this should be no different.
Those issues have been raised before. I acknowledged them then, and I still do, along with others you haven't listed. I've said as much over and over. Still doesn't mean the technology is not worth pursuing and trying to perfect, in order to deal with those issues. There are lots of things now part of everyday life that were right out of science fiction only a few decades ago. FWIW, the guns as they exist now can be set to recognize more than one user.
I'm not anti-gun, like some people have assumed, nor do I think it's desirable or even possible to require that all guns be smart guns. I simply think they could, one day, be a good option for people who want them. I'm not sure why that is so upsetting to so many people.
Once anti-gun states like NJ get rid of their mandatory smart gun laws then I will stop my resistance and let the free market settle this. Until then I will support my gun owning friends in New Jersey.
Those issues have been raised before. I acknowledged them then, and I still do, along with others you haven't listed. I've said as much over and over. Still doesn't mean the technology is not worth pursuing and trying to perfect, in order to deal with those issues. There are lots of things now part of everyday life that were right out of science fiction only a few decades ago. FWIW, the guns as they exist now can be set to recognize more than one user.
I'm not anti-gun, like some people have assumed, nor do I think it's desirable or even possible to require that all guns be smart guns. I simply think they could, one day, be a good option for people who want them. I'm not sure why that is so upsetting to so many people.
" Still doesn't mean the technology is not worth pursuing and trying to perfect,"
Those issues have been raised before. I acknowledged them then, and I still do, along with others you haven't listed. I've said as much over and over. Still doesn't mean the technology is not worth pursuing and trying to perfect, in order to deal with those issues. There are lots of things now part of everyday life that were right out of science fiction only a few decades ago. FWIW, the guns as they exist now can be set to recognize more than one user.
I'm not anti-gun, like some people have assumed, nor do I think it's desirable or even possible to require that all guns be smart guns. I simply think they could, one day, be a good option for people who want them. I'm not sure why that is so upsetting to so many people.
The concept doesn't upset me. When these guns were actually put on the shelf for sale however, there was a sudden rush by certain groups to mandate the technology based on the premise that since it was commercially available it must work as intended so it should be made mandatory. THAT rather "upsets" me. That there could be a niche for such technology in the future, sure, I'll go along with that. However, even when/if it's "perfected" I believe it will be in highly specialized applications in somewhat controlled environments.
To my mind, such technology doesn't adapt well to simple mechanical devices like firearms. On ,say, plasma based weaponry that requires electrical power to work it would be more readily usable. But we aren't fielding such hardware quite yet. Mores the pity. "Smart" tech on simple mechanical devices like firearms is trying to reinvent the wheel. On a weapon that uses caseless ammunition that utilizes an electrical circuit to ignite the propellant perhaps the smart tech could be incorporated in. It seems to me that the weapon would rather be designed around such a system. There is just flat no way such a system could be adapted to current standard firearms. I'm no electrical/electronic engineer, but I'm pretty fair on mechanical stuff, and I just can't see how it could be done without a complete frame ally change the operating features of the gun. A 1911A1 would not be a 1911A1 anymore after such an attempt. My mind conjures images of all manner of clunky add ons that just destroy the ergonomics of the weapon.
So as far as smart the goes, the "do it for the children" gun phobic types are going to have to come to grips with the fact we are talking about a whole new class of firearms designed from scratch around this type of technology. Continue to work on it? Sure. If a company has the money for the R&D and can come up with a design that works, providing that the potential market will support the money other resources required, somebody may just. It's not something I'd get to excited about, personally. Despite the lamentations of certain groups who feel this is something that can just happen tomorrow, this is, in reality a mere concept. Nothing more.
On ,say, plasma based weaponry that requires electrical power to work it would be more readily usable. But we aren't fielding such hardware quite yet. Mores the pity.
Simple gun training is suffice. If someone has one in a gunfight, and they die, that gun becomes useless. What if there is a family member needing it? Useless. And guranteed the bad guys wont have that technology.
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.
"Smart" tech on simple mechanical devices like firearms is trying to reinvent the wheel. On a weapon that uses caseless ammunition that utilizes an electrical circuit to ignite the propellant perhaps the smart tech could be incorporated in. It seems to me that the weapon would rather be designed around such a system. There is just flat no way such a system could be adapted to current standard firearms. I'm no electrical/electronic engineer, but I'm pretty fair on mechanical stuff, and I just can't see how it could be done without a complete frame ally change the operating features of the gun. A 1911A1 would not be a 1911A1 anymore after such an attempt. My mind conjures images of all manner of clunky add ons that just destroy the ergonomics of the weapon. 
