Smart Guns a Dumb Idea

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

quade

And I'd say the statement still stands with regards to ideology, maybe even the subtle bribery some gun sellers would offer toward police purchases.

There may be some truth to that.

Cops tend to be very conservative with their equipment choices. They are very reluctant to adopt any new technology until it is well proven.
How long they kept using revolvers is a good example (some still carry them).

But I can't really see how the sellers would care if the cops bought standard "dumb" guns or "smart" ones. They are just resellers. The cop orders the gun, the dealer gets it from the wholesaler.

"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

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

> 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.

And yet, as we see, that's not how it plays out. Already a state has a mandate in play. Since the objective is really about decreasing choice and increasing cost, logic doesn't apply.

Your AAD analogy failed miserably. The AAD doesn't prevent you from pulling your reserve handle. It merely adds a third method (RSL being #2). For it to resemble the smart gun, you'd need to push a button on the AAD and then it would cut the loop. Which, aside from the incredible hassle of having to replace parts with each use, has multiple failure points (power, circuits) that don't exist with mechanical.

Consider the stress on electronics being in short proximity to 10,000 explosions where failure is not acceptable. Never mind the reliance on battery power for a device that is used very infrequently for most. Do you have it beep like a smoke detector when the power is low? Or does that sound absurd - the perfect way to signal location of an interesting toy to children?

[toolbox 0]

>How long they kept using revolvers is a good example (some still carry them).

Very good example of the importance of reliability.
The revolver is an older,and more simple design compared to sem iauto pistols,and the high level of reliability that they afford still makes them popular with many people,especially when using the more powerful cartridges that lessen the need for more capacity that is often found in the semi autos that use the more common but far weaker rounds like 9mm,40 S&W, or 45acp.
The downside of the more powerful cartridges common for use in revolvers is the increased recoil,and over penetration potential that goes with increased muzzle velocity.
My biggest problem though is that having a weapon that could be deactivated by the powers that be would defeat the main reason for having the 2nd amendment,since the 2nd as we should all know is not just to defend citizens from criminals, or to hunt,but to give the people the ability to resist a tyrannical government,or to repel foreign invaders.