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.
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.
Because I don't want "technology" involved in something that could be time sensitive in a life or death situation. Things like bugs, errors, security codes, dead batteries should not become a barrier to someone protecting themselves.
and how would this be installed on the millions of antique and collectable firearms in circulation with diminishing their esthetics or financially burdening their law abiding owners??
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.
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 have no objection to smart phones. If a homeowner feels a need for a firearm and has young children living in the home a smart phone might be a reasonable choice. But personally, I wouldn't have one. No kids in my home so that's not an issue. But if I had the need to use a firearm for self-defense I don't want to be up a creek without a paddle if a battery ran dry.
The primary argument against "smart gun" technology is that it seldom works as intended. As things stand right now, if you're trying to defend yourself with a "smart gun" when your attacker has a standard firearm that is unhindered by "smart" technology, you are likely to lose. Whereas you are unable to get even one shot off with your "smart gun," your attacker has filled you full of hot lead with his "dumb" gun.
Relying on "smart gun" technology in a firefight is really stupid.
If a company wants to offer them, fine. Shouldn't be mandatory and I sure wouldn't want one.
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.
