Smart Guns and reasons why they are not a good idea.

[DadSmith]

I ran across an older article about smart guns read it and was wondering if they had made more advancements on that technology?
Also want to discuss the reasons why they are not a good idea.

This article gives some good thoughts. I'm sure there are a lot better thoughts on this subject here on INGO.

Looks Can Be Deceiving: This "Smart Gun" Is a Really Bad Idea

High-tech handgun actually makes shooters less safe.

nationalinterest.org

Also discuss what it would have to take to develop a smart gun in order for our law enforcement agencies to adopt these smart guns.

 

[gregr]

Smart guns are a fatally flawed concept, and are by design. So called smart guns are just like a mechanical safety on a firearm, unnecessary, because the operator HAS to be in control, be disciplined, and you simply cannot and do not control criminal or reckless behavior by controlling firearms. Period. It`s just one more avenue by which liberals seek to control YOU.

 

[Leadeye]

I like smartguns, the prop gun was built around one of my all time favorites, the MG-42.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

If you have to have a serious conversation about why they are a bad thing, the conversation is already lost.

 

[DadSmith]

If you have to have a serious conversation about why they are a bad thing, the conversation is already lost.

So you can't say they are a bad idea? What are the good points and how far does this technology need to develop for it to be reliable in a life and death situation that law enforcement face around the country daily.

 

[gregr]

So you can't say they are a bad idea? What are the good points and how far does this technology need to develop for it to be reliable in a life and death situation that law enforcement face around the country daily.

Never mind law enforcement, how about reliable for the average citizen to be able to ALWAYS be able to defend themselves and their loved ones?

 

[DadSmith]

Never mind law enforcement, how about reliable for the average citizen to be able to ALWAYS be able to defend themselves and their loved ones?

The article says to use that weapon you had to wear a watch and type a code in to use it. Was it every single time you did or once per day? Plus the technology according to the article may not be strong enough to take more than a 22lr. If that is the case they have a long long way to go.

 

[gregr]

The article says to use that weapon you had to wear a watch and type a code in to use it. Was it every single time you did or once per day? Plus the technology according to the article may not be strong enough to take more than a 22lr. If that is the case they have a long long way to go.

I fully believe that the push towards the so called smart guns is just one more attempt at a way to control citizens and infringe upon the Second Amendment. There are seemingly too many opportunities to make a "smart gun" inoperable and the citizen thereby, unable to defend themselves.

 

[DadSmith]

I fully believe that the push towards the so called smart guns is just one more attempt at a way to control citizens and infringe upon the Second Amendment. There are seemingly too many opportunities to make a "smart gun" inoperable and the citizen thereby, unable to defend themselves.

That I believe also but they need a way to make a firearm useless if say there is a resistance movement or criminals, and they take firearms from those that have them this kind of technology could render them useless.

 

[Spear Dane]

So you can't say they are a bad idea? What are the good points and how far does this technology need to develop for it to be reliable in a life and death situation that law enforcement face around the country daily.

You keep talking about LE. It is US that those things will be inflicted upon. Not LE. You're trying to have a conversation about a concept you do not even grasp correctly. I'm not trying to be mean. Just saying.

 

[gregr]

You keep talking about LE. It is US that those things will be inflicted upon. Not LE. You're trying to have a conversation about a concept you do not even grasp correctly. I'm not trying to be mean. Just saying.

Why would be just one group or the other. The point and goal is control. Control of LEO`s, control of citizens. There are liberal globalists SCUM who mean to be in control.


“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”
― Daniel Webster

 

[DadSmith]

You keep talking about LE. It is US that those things will be inflicted upon. Not LE. You're trying to have a conversation about a concept you do not even grasp correctly. I'm not trying to be mean. Just saying.

I do understand it. I have a feeling law enforcement will be the test subjects of this technology. In the end If it does work the criminals and those who would fight tyranny would have to procure firearms from the most likely source. I believe this technology will come no matter. If we like it or not I believe it is coming.


Found another article on it. Look at the poll in it.

Will smart guns hit their target this time?

Personalised guns have been a failure in the US, but with updated tech and new political will, there is hope. What is the chance of smart-gun success after two decades of trial and error?

eandt.theiet.org

 

[jbombelli]

There's no such thing as a "smart gun". That's all you need to know. The whole concept is bull****.

 

[DadSmith]

Here is some more thoughts on smartguns.

Smart Guns? Dumb Policy.

President Biden claimed, “… we have the capacity now in a James Bond-style to make sure no one can pull a trigger unless their DNA and fingerprint is on it.”

www.nssf.org

"In a life-or-death situation when an individual is under duress and trying to activate the tool that would save their lives, swiping a fingerprint screen is the last concern. If your iPhone doesn’t open, you’re inconvenienced. If your firearm doesn’t work at the moment you need it you could be dead. That’s why study and survey work on this topic show that reliability is of paramount concern. Because the technology is not yet sufficiently reliable, there is very limited consumer interest in purchasing authorized-user equipped firearms."

 

[gregr]

Because the technology is not yet sufficiently reliable, there is very limited consumer interest in purchasing authorized-user equipped firearms."

That technology will NEVER be sufficiently reliable to allow for trust in it when lives are on the line.

 

[DadSmith]

That technology will NEVER be sufficiently reliable to allow for trust in it when lives are on the line.

Give it 20 years more and if big government gets behind it and pushes it I think you'll see some of this being mandatory in the next few decades.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Give it 20 years more and if big government gets behind it and pushes it I think you'll see some of this being mandatory in the next few decades.

I don't doubt that this is the idea. They now have technology to neutralize phones and other devices. My guess is thst technology to neutralize your "smart" gun isn't too far away from that.

Smart guns...yes, about as smart as Maxwell Smart.

 

[Leadeye]

They certainly will be another check in big tech's pocket, might explain the administration's interest.

Always follow the money

 

[gregr]

I don't doubt that this is the idea. They now have technology to neutralize phones and other devices. My guess is thst technology to neutralize your "smart" gun isn't too far away from that.

Smart guns...yes, about as smart as Maxwell Smart.

And THIS is why I said that it`s a flawed technology by design.

 

[rooster]

It’s hard enough to to get a gun that’s not a glock to run reliably without adding in additional mechanical complexity.