Now you’re talking @Greg35 and warp capable engines! 
6 Likes
So in the future it won’t only be SIGs that fire without the operator’s finger on the trigger? Yes, I recently read that they can already turn cars off, if they get close enough to them. Unquestionably, “smart” firearms would be equally vulnerable.
3 Likes
“Today, we have the technology to allow only authorized users to fire a gun. For example, existing smart gun technology requires a fingerprint match before use,”
This is pretty blatantly misleading. I mean… sure there are/were a few prototypes running around with this type of tech. But the campaign makes it sound like its just ready and available and works and the NRA doesn’t like it so we can’t have it.
As others have mentioned, there are too many scenarios where this wouldn’t work when you need it. Battery dies, sensor (biometric, bluetooth, nfc, wifi, face) doesn’t work, it just plain breaks (recoil, bumping on things during use), delay in “recognition time”, what if other users need to use it. And that doesn’t account for some more extreme happenings like an EMP event.
Sources in the gun industry highlighted that such pivotal woes – hacking and glitches – was one of the key reasons “smart” technology hasn’t been created and applied to regular firearms use in the military or law enforcement.
Everything I own for defense has been vetted in some way by a looooooooong history of use by MIL or LEO. It is tried and true. The most likely target for someone stealing your gun off of you is LEO/prison guards, distantly followed by MIL. When those folks have put this tech through the ringer for a few years (decades) then maybe I would consider it.
“Smart-gun technology would have zero impact on crime. Criminals already hack into computer systems, steal passcodes and pin numbers, bypass electronic locks, and otherwise commit crimes,” Michalowski argued. “So what is to stop them from figuring out how to bypass the elements needed to create a smart gun? So, once again, with a gun-control scheme, the only impact ‘smart’ technology would have is on the law-abiding citizen.”
And our dear Kevin Michalowski hits on very likely the most important point about “smart” guns. It won’t solve any portion of the country’s “gun violence” problem.
2/3rds of gun deaths in the country are suicides. Smart guns will not stop that, as you would just use a firearm you bought and purchased legally.
Most of the remaining 1/3rd of gun deaths are criminals/gangs. They have 400M+ guns to steal or buy (likely more than you’d get from any official buyback) that will work for the next 50-100years+. Any new technology they can quickly figure out how to bypass by taking your finger/ring/watch and will continue to use after they’ve pried it out, disabled it, hacked it.
So the net result… we are at the same place as before regarding gun deaths, but now regular law-abiding citizens are at even more of a deficit. No thanks.
4 Likes
Smart gun technology, by it’s very intended purpose, would deliberately introduce a failure point into the chain of operation of the gun. Theoretically this failure point could , and would, be sufficiently controlled so as to prevent “undesirable” activation. But the deliberately introduced failure point would necessarily be accomplished with a very complex apparatus of additional electronic and mechanical components, all of which, unavoidably, introduce hundreds, or even thousands, of additional failure points to the overall piece of equipment. Worse still, the majority of those newly added failure points would be invisible, and unreachable, with no way to monitor them for immanent failure, tampering, or flaws. It would even be subject to things as crazy as a date code or timer, put in by an unfriendly entity where the micro-electronics were made , that rendered all guns with that chip inoperable after a certain date. The bottom line is, you could never be sure to the same degree, with anywhere near the same attainable level of confidence, that the gun would absolutely work when needed.
To me it serves to introduce a whole host of potential failures, a litany of potential forms of abuse, and a dramatic increase in complexity, all for a questionable, hoped for, result. Given the critical nature of the piece of equipment in question, and it’s reason for being, ( not to mention it’s reason for being a protected right ), This would seem to be a profoundly risky approach If one intends to maintain the integrity of the right, the purpose, or the tool.
(( Imagine the day your 1911 demands to go on line to update and and says it “will not function for 911 calls during the install process” — OH,… sorry,… that was just a nightmare I woke up from. ))
5 Likes
The biggest concern we ALL should have is the democrats trying to implement technology and capabilities not yet ready for mainstream.
In california, some idiot politicians introduced legislation on micro-stamping. they suggested to everyone how nice it’d be to have ever round stamped with the serial number to help solve crimes. Problem is, the masses don’t realize that micro-stamping becomes useless after only a couple rounds as the imprints are hammered down after firing a few rounds. It’s similar to if some politician declared how nice it’d be to drive solar vehicles only. While there are certainly solar powered vehicles our there, they are not yet practical for daily use and mass production…so passing a law forcing the public to buy one would be useless. Similarly, that’s exactly what they did with microstamping and now ALL new firearms that manufacturers want to sell in California MUST be equipped with microstamping capabilities. IF they aren’t, they can’t be sold. Problem is, as you know, there are none with this capability. That means in california, NO NEW handguns can be sold. For those not aware, Californians are still having to buy old firearms grandfathered in like gen 3 glocks rather than any new glock version. We don’t have access to any new firearms except those purchased by law enforcement and sold or those purchased by people in other states who move and sell them here.
I see Biden’s plan exactly like what other dems have done here…take away choice and continue to remove our choices.
3 Likes
The left doesn’t use common sense… they only want compliance. They also cannot be trusted to tell the truth!!! just look at the lame-stream fake news.
5 Likes
The more complex a tool the less reliable it becomes…
7 Likes
I hope people will forgive a newbie to participating in social media type things. I get so focused while reading that I forget to " like" a lot of worthy posts. Believe it or not, some that disagree with me.
If it were possible to assure me that there was sufficient reliability, and as importantly, that the ability to shut it off remotely was also, basically, impossible, I might sign on to the idea of a smart gun. But i just don’t think it’s ever likely to be possible to grant me those two assurances.
3 Likes
Considering I was once a member of the left, I disagree. I told the truth, I just didn’t know what the truth was. Like many on the left, that is their problems as well. The Dems have the best marketing campaign ever…they’ve been able to convince the ignorant they weren’t the party responsible for slavery and segregation (to name a few). They can twist the truth like no one else. It’s no wonder people believe them…until they start looking up the facts themselves.
The way I see it, many of those delusional idiots are future republicans when they wake up and open their eyes. Don’t hate them because they’re democrats, hate the ones pulling the strings.
4 Likes
With all due respect, Sir. Truth is truth whether you know it or not, and “error” is error whether you know it or not .
2 Likes
I agree. did you think I didn’t?
1 Like
When I said I told the truth, it meant that when I was a democrat I didn’t lie, I was truthful. I may have been misinformed, but I still thought I was doing the right thing for the right reasons. While I’ve never been involved in mob mentality and committed crimes like these idiots are doing, I’ve seen enough mob mentalities to know and understand how it happens and it can turn good people into regretful people pretty fast.
My only point is I don’t hate the idiots out there rioting. I think they’re absolute idiots who need to go to jail but I don’t hate them. If they threatened my family or I, I would certainly shoot to kill to protect us, but I don’t hate them. I would prefer to see them all wake up and smell the roses if you will and walk away. I’d rather they grow up, then get killed.
I’d rather have a smart population that understands what personal responsibility is and applies it to all people fairly. Since that would remove the need (or excuse) for any infringement of our rights
6 Likes
No, no, and no.
#1, look no further than who is touting their merits. #2, simplicity begets reliability.
4 Likes
if smart guns or anything like smartphones we’re in trouble because my smartphone constantly misspelled words or take forever to load
4 Likes
Look no further than the EPA fiat in 2009 mandating “safe” gasoline cans.
The resulting spring-loaded “safe” nightmare is virtually unusable unless a human being has 3 hands. The “safe” gas can, and ensuing “improved” iterations, are a functional nightmare.
A smart gun mandate will similarly be a functional nightmare to the actual users. Unfortunately the consequences will be much more severe than a slow lawn mower fill or a little spilled gasoline.
5 Likes
I will be happy to use the “Smart Gun” as soon as ALL Secret Service, and all politician’s armed protection detail folks use them and only those guns. If found with any other type of gun those protection detail persons would lose the gun and be given a very hefty fine.
1 Like
and just as long as we’re speaking of phaser type 1 (flip phone sized) or type 3 (pistol pattern) I’m in. Shouldn’t need it very often but I’ll rack a type 5 (rifle format) in the safe. (Right next to the Bat’leth! - for those days when nothing else will do.)
2 Likes