0
jgoose71

Smart Guns a Dumb Idea

Recommended Posts

So if the technology pans out, can I finally buy a fully automatic suppressed weapon without all the extra federally mandated requirements?:ph34r:

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>I personally think that smart guns are a good idea, however, mandating unproven
>technology is a bad idea. Especially when that unproven technology affects one of
>your constitutionally protected rights.

I agree. Incentives? Great idea to prove out the technology. Mandate? Not until we have performance data.



What kind of performance data? Nevermind. The fact that you are even discussing a mandate given proper data makes that rhetorical for me.

I am sorry. I just don't understand how you don't understand.

I don't have much a lot of experience with drugs so I don't particularly engage in debate about legislation either way. I could learn to take a side but but I leave that up to you experts. I do enough to sound stupid without going there. Yet we have people that claim to not do drugs all for legalizing and those that don't shoot guns willing to ban them. It gets confusing how people pick there stances. But then when I realize they let there political party define those is starts to get a little clearer.

The Venerable 1911 smart gun? When can I get my Les Baer? Wilson? Oh. That's right. Every gun I own is no longer available. And my neighbors. And his neighbors....and so on.

If you even knew how silly this mandated concept sounds... But you probably consider those that do "gun nuts"

If you really don't realize the consequences it is not worth debating. But I am pretty sure you know exactly what your doing.

"performance data"...........????

How about we start with a mandate for the gangs and inner city impoverished areas and see how they work? If we can save just a few gang banger criminals it will be all worth it.
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>So if the technology pans out, can I finally buy a fully automatic suppressed
>weapon without all the extra federally mandated requirements?

Yes, but you'll have to argue with it every time you take it to the range.



Not really. All my weapons are spayed or neutered and well trained. I also don't let them roam the streets at night unsupervised. I will occasionally let them off their leash, but only in authorized areas.

The last thing I want is a pack of wild guns running wild in the streets....
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

So you hear a "click - thump" in the middle of the night and you realize your 6 year old just got hold of your handgun; he's been watching where you keep the key to the gun safe. You jump out of bed, then you hear a "bang" as the "dumb gun" fires as it is designed to . . . .

Stupid fucking idea.



no, because as a responsible gun owner, my kids know about guns, so rather than be curious about them, they're respectful.

But if you don't want to teach your kids about guns and how to respect, not fear, them. That's your call

Stupid fucking idea.
--
Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grue

It's gonna be hilarious in a not-funny way when the technology is defeated and THE BAD GUYS™ aren't deterred by it in any way.



We should pass more laws to keep the guns out of bad guys hands then. It's working great in Chicago and Mexico.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

no, because as a responsible gun owner, my kids know about guns, so rather than be curious about them, they're respectful.

But if you don't want to teach your kids about guns and how to respect, not fear, them. That's your call

Stupid fucking idea.

My grandson is pretty severely autistic. In terms of reading, writing, etc he is still far behind his age group. I seriously doubt that we'll have much luck teaching gun safety to a kid who still poops in a diaper at almost 5 years old. However he does like to climb, pull open drawers and dump out the contents, etc. I would like to have the security of having a firearm reasonably handy for home defense, yet not have to worry he'll find it resulting in a tragedy. But you tell me that's a stupid fucking idea.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is it with people taking themselves so seriously here. Look up thread. Lots of "stupid fucking idea". This is not a serious debate forum. When the moderators and their pets are some of the biggest shit-stirrers, it's clearly all just a troll-fest.

You don't teach him anything about guns because you don't think you'll have much luck. Try. At 5, I'd try to teach that it's one of those things that he can ask about, but not touch or handle on his own. That's what I did with my kids. Autistic or not, if they can reach (through climbing or other means) the means to open the gun cabinet/safe, then they need to be educated to the point they're not curious, or the firearms need to be better secured.

If you want to have the security of having a firearm handy, education or one of the many already available biometric safes with a combo backup might be the thing you're looking for.

I still don't think it's a good idea not to talk to a child about guns. But if you'd rather buy a smart gun, go right ahead. I won't be buying one. I don't worry that my kids will be curious about my guns. I know they respect them.

You want to buy a smart-gun and leave it on your bedside table? Let's hope he doesn't wander upon a non-smart gun and try playing with it to because he was never taught respect for firearms.
--
Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon

Quote

no, because as a responsible gun owner, my kids know about guns, so rather than be curious about them, they're respectful.

But if you don't want to teach your kids about guns and how to respect, not fear, them. That's your call

Stupid fucking idea.

My grandson is pretty severely autistic. In terms of reading, writing, etc he is still far behind his age group. I seriously doubt that we'll have much luck teaching gun safety to a kid who still poops in a diaper at almost 5 years old. However he does like to climb, pull open drawers and dump out the contents, etc. I would like to have the security of having a firearm reasonably handy for home defense, yet not have to worry he'll find it resulting in a tragedy. But you tell me that's a stupid fucking idea.

Don



So if you can afford a gun and you want one but don't have the money for a biometric safe which is reasonably handy why couldn't you just keep the Loaded mag separate? In your pocket? In a high place? In the freezer?(or not) What is the difference in having to get the watch vs get the mag during the times your grandson is around. Unless you are always going to wear this watch at all times. I personally can't wear watches. I would strap it to the firearm.

What is a fucking stupid idea is a mandate or legislation. It is simply a back door way to stop or at least highly reduce firearm sales. All guns would now need to be electronic. Almost every bit of tooling any manufactures have becomes scrap. If you would rather spend thousands for an electronic .22lr gun and then trust your life to it(since you said you want one for protection) instead of a couple hundred dollar safe I for one am not going to call you a fucking idiot. Not to your face. Have at it.

But I doubt they will be available until that law gets repealed.

What I find funny is that all the anti gun people automatically jump on this death threat bandwagon without any knowledge it is true. This whole thing stinks like a big publicity stunt to me. Whether to draw in business for the Gun shop owner or to get the Jersey law changed or a little of both. And it most likely will do both so much good can come out of it. Whether there were a few idiots that actually threatened or that was just made up to get mainstream recognition. So where is the big problem. Only good can come out of this?

So he get more sales, the Jersey law gets dropped which directly in turn may will allow a path to open for you to actually get purchase a gizmo gun vs a reliable accurate firearm in the caliber of your choice and a reliable safe. I recommend The Judge deserves a good look. 410 in the first cylinder
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>What kind of performance data?

False positive rate and false negative rate. Effects on accuracy and time to first shot.

>The Venerable 1911 smart gun? When can I get my Les Baer? Wilson? Oh.
>That's right. Every gun I own is no longer available.

Why couldn't you retrofit them if you wanted to? And why would you want to buy them again if you already own them?

>How about we start with a mandate for the gangs and inner city impoverished
>areas and see how they work?

What's a "mandate for gangs?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>What kind of performance data?

False positive rate and false negative rate. Effects on accuracy and time to first shot.

>The Venerable 1911 smart gun? When can I get my Les Baer? Wilson? Oh.
>That's right. Every gun I own is no longer available.

Why couldn't you retrofit them if you wanted to? And why would you want to buy them again if you already own them?

>How about we start with a mandate for the gangs and inner city impoverished
>areas and see how they work?

What's a "mandate for gangs?"



That came out a attempted sarcasm when I was tired and really even if constructed properly was a silly attempt. I think I meant mandate the smart guns use for the gangs first as a sample group. Pretend I didn't say it.

And I don't know how/if retrofitting with that particular technology would even exist. Not a room in many designs. I can't believe I having this conversation.

And I don't have either of those manufactures firearms I listed. It was a poor posting all the way around. As jaded as your views on firearms can be I was still surprised to see you talking about considering a mandate. I think it is just silly. Kits for mounting the chip in the gun would surface. Devices to jam the frequencies would be surface.
That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>I personally think that smart guns are a good idea, however, mandating unproven
>technology is a bad idea. Especially when that unproven technology affects one of
>your constitutionally protected rights.

I agree. Incentives? Great idea to prove out the technology. Mandate? Not until we have performance data.



that feels a bit like putting rookies on high wingloading canopies and seeing if they femur or not.

Consumers will be waiting to see when LEOs voluntarily start carrying them (rather than political mandates that insist they do) to start considering it, and 'might' accept mandates that all guns be smart when LEO must use them exclusively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon

***"a New Jersey law under which only smart handguns can be sold there"

it's the entire reason for this thread.

If you don't like a law, there is a process for addressing that. Death threats should not be any part of that process. I'm rather shocked you don't see that, as (in regards to topics other than guns) you come across as generally level headed and rational.


The death threat thing puzzled me...hadn't seen it. I was answering to the text seen. Having now looked at the cited url, it makes more sense, as do the free market remarks. Still ironic though - the free market discussion works on two angles.

I do not endorse threats of violence against gun shops based on their product offerings - they have enough trouble with the ATF storm troopers. In the spirit of what you and Quade referred to, we saw what happened with S&W (owned by a Brit corp at the time) sold out to the Clinton Administration. It went under amazingly quickly and was resold to a more suitable party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kelpdiver

***>I personally think that smart guns are a good idea, however, mandating unproven
>technology is a bad idea. Especially when that unproven technology affects one of
>your constitutionally protected rights.

I agree. Incentives? Great idea to prove out the technology. Mandate? Not until we have performance data.



that feels a bit like putting rookies on high wingloading canopies and seeing if they femur or not.

Consumers will be waiting to see when LEOs voluntarily start carrying them (rather than political mandates that insist they do) to start considering it, and 'might' accept mandates that all guns be smart when LEO must use them exclusively.

And THAT is like saying no canopy is safe to fly unless the PD swoop team is using it.

Silly.

There are different models of everything because different people have different requirements.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don, if your grandson is autistic, then i would most definitely put some hearing protection on him and take him to the range so he can stand there while you pop off a few rounds. by number two, he will not touch it ever again. this is the safest thing you can do if you do have a gun which is not locked up in the house, but in your situation, i would not recommend that ever, just in case.

this is also the finest exapmle of why this kind of legislatin is bad as well. there are no such things as a 'one size fits all' answer to any problem. we need to be able to adapt things to changing circumstances sometimes.
_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>that feels a bit like putting rookies on high wingloading canopies and seeing if they femur or not.

Well, more like selling rookies whatever ZP canopies they want, then after having collected enough data, transitioning all students to ZP canopies (which is what we've done.)

The first ZP canopy I ever saw was a Monarch back in 1991. The idea that students could jump a ZP canopy was ludicrous. Everyone knew that they couldn't handle the high performance that ZP gave you and there would be dead students left and right if you tried. Nowadays I don't think you can buy a non-ZP student canopy.

>Consumers will be waiting to see when LEOs voluntarily start carrying them

And they won't do it until consumers start using them and collecting some data on their operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon


>Consumers will be waiting to see when LEOs voluntarily start carrying them

And they won't do it until consumers start using them and collecting some data on their operation.



LEO won't voluntarily do it ever. Like everyone else, they don't want to get killed by gun control fantasies. But unlike everyone else, they have enough pull to get excluded from the experiments.

"Smart" gun technology is a major KISS violation, adding multiple failure points for a marginal gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Like everyone else, they don't want to get killed by gun control fantasies.

A lot of people didn't want to get killed by "perfect AAD" fantasies either; everyone knew that an AAD was just waiting to kill you if you ever got above the person in freefall. But once they were proven people started using them, and now they are downright common.

>"Smart" gun technology is a major KISS violation, adding multiple failure points
>for a marginal gain.

So are modern cars. But overall they are more reliable, cheaper (in real dollars) and perform better than the "simple" cars of yesteryear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

> Like everyone else, they don't want to get killed by gun control fantasies.

A lot of people didn't want to get killed by "perfect AAD" fantasies either; everyone knew that an AAD was just waiting to kill you if you ever got above the person in freefall. But once they were proven people started using them, and now they are downright common.



Would you want your AAD to be dependent on radio frequency? How about your main? Even worse, would you want the government mandating it because they felt it was more responsible and would save lives?

I know it's a billvonian analogy, but you brought it up...:P

Personally, I wouldn't mind owning one of these personalized "smart" guns - I think it's cool - and I'm sure I'd have plenty of time testing out it's reliability in my back yard, but I would never want it mandated no matter how reliable my tests prove.

A government mandate for these guns just seems like "People looking after their own immediate and short term self interests rather than looking at the ramifications further down the line." (as quade puts it.)

What if history repeats itself and in 100 years when only smart guns are available, we're found to be just another great country in history who found itself under the power of another tyrannical government where we can't "bear arms" to protect ourselves nor retreat into the forest and live off the land with our guns because said tyrannical government jammed our signals?

I'd much prefer some type of easily removable/replaceable safety mechanism as a compromise to a mandate dependent on RF....
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Would you want your AAD to be dependent on radio frequency?

If it worked well, and prevented two-outs and/or misfires? Definitely. If it didn't work well I wouldn't want it.

Would you want your jump ship to be dependent on radio frequency?

> Even worse, would you want the government mandating it because they felt it
> was more responsible and would save lives?

Again, not until that was proven to save lives AND not affect the normal operation of the gun. And even then you'd need a very good argument to impose such a restriction on everyone.

A much better way to do it would be to:

1) Test it for a few years/decades until we have good data.
2) If it proves out, apply it to guns in places that are currently restricted. For example, allow people to carry smart guns in airports.

>What if history repeats itself and in 100 years when only smart guns are available,
>we're found to be just another great country in history who found itself under the
>power of another tyrannical government where we can't "bear arms" to protect
>ourselves nor retreat into the forest and live off the land with our guns because
>said tyrannical government jammed our signals?

What if 100 years from now only dumb guns were available to citizens, and the government's smart guns make it effectively impossible for any citizen to oppose the State? And what if we got there because of irrational fear of new technology? That would be bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kelpdiver

***
>Consumers will be waiting to see when LEOs voluntarily start carrying them

And they won't do it until consumers start using them and collecting some data on their operation.



LEO won't voluntarily do it ever. Like everyone else, they don't want to get killed by gun control fantasies. But unlike everyone else, they have enough pull to get excluded from the experiments.

"Smart" gun technology is a major KISS violation, adding multiple failure points for a marginal gain.

And the most aggravating part about this is that LEOs are the ones who would stand to benefit the most from "smart gun" tech.
A huge percentage of officers who get shot are shot with their own gun. Something like 30% IIRC. They practice gun retention on a regular basis. They have some very tricky holsters to prevent a "snatching."
Having a gun that is disabled when taken from the LEO would end LEOs being shot with their own gun.

But the LEOs feel that the technology isn't solid enough for them.

What does that say about the technology?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

But the LEOs feel say that the technology isn't solid enough for them.

What does that say about the technology?



Procurement isn't always about the best technology. A lot of times it has to do with historic relationships between procurement offices and sellers. Sometimes it has to do with ideology and bribery.

Think about that dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft guy in IT who won't let you have anything installed on your computer except Office 2007. Or maybe that guy down the hall who was getting kickbacks from the seller of a particular office supply.

(BTW, these are both real examples from my own life I've witnessed.)
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

***But the LEOs feel say that the technology isn't solid enough for them.

What does that say about the technology?



Procurement isn't always about the best technology. A lot of times it has to do with historic relationships between procurement offices and sellers. Sometimes it has to do with ideology and bribery.

Think about that dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft guy in IT who won't let you have anything installed on your computer except Office 2007.

These days, most cops buy their own guns. They have a list of "approved" choices, and usually (but not always) a list of "approved" dealers.

The individual cops are the ones who make the decision. Not a "procurement office."

And AFAIK, no department has banned "smart guns" (they just refuse to require them), but none of the officers have adopted them.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0