"Smart" Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 108, Apr 28, 2014.

  1. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,448
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,025
    I had a bio-lock gun safe. It was very inconsistent when trying to open. At times, I barely needed to touch my finger to the scanner. Other times, I would have to repeatedly touch the scanner before it would open. I scrapped it for an old fashioned (electronic) pin key lock. I can open that safe in less than 3 seconds.

    Again, I am hopeful the technology will improve to a point where smart guns are a viable alternative, but as of now, and comparing it to the Bio-lock safe I once had, it's just not there yet.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,926
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,612
    A Douglas Adams line that's now an axiom among engineers is that a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Normal firearms not being completely foolproof is not in and of itself an excuse to go blithely introducing additional ways that the gun can malfunction, let alone doing so in order to market the thing as "safer".

    A safe gun is like a safe dog -- it reliably does what its told when its told at the command of a responsible master.

    The market for the "smart" gun sounds suspiciously like its for people who can't or won't be arsed to take personal accountability for making sure everyone in their home is fully educated and safe about a weapon, so they want to count on technology to protect people from ignorance and irresponsibility by the owner or whoever picks it up. And they want it bad enough that they'll risk owning a gun that may be of no use to anyone at the moment of need. So, kinda like the cliche of the giant car compensating for something small, it's as if the "smart" gun might be meant to compensate for the "dumb" owner.
  3. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Yep. "Smart" guns are a lot like "common sense" gun laws.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,616
    Excellent point.

    Clearly we have much greater basis for expectation of privacy wrt our own health care, than wrt guns....
  5. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,823
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +850
    It's funny how cons are all about the free market until some product comes along that they don't want the public to have access to.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,616
    ...better yet, the Article gave a pretty damn good reason WHY everyone should take that same stance:

    Second Amendment defenders argue that once guns with high-tech safety features go on sale, government mandates will follow. They cite a decade-old New Jersey law requiring that within three years of the recognition technology’s becoming available in the United States, all guns sold in the state would have to be “smart.”
    “Are we concerned?” asked Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for gun manufacturers. “Yes.”

    New Jersey seems to be already on it; how many more to follow suit?
  7. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    458
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,616
    It's not the product that causes concern--it's what the government will likely do with it, that is distressing.

    See above--apparently, New Jersey passed the law before the technology even existed.

    So now it's supposedly unreasonable to expect that other states will follow suit?
  8. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,436
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,805
    the major flaw in many a conservative argument....the absence of the reality of a situation, in favor of what they think people should or shouldn't do..

    yes, in an ideal world, everybody would act in line, but that just isn't so...

    there is a market for this weaponry, and it will only grow as technology progresses
  9. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,926
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,612
    ... and people who rely on it will only be less safe than they'd be just being smart gun owners of dumb ole guns.
  10. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Do you understand the difference between "have access to" and "a requirement for ownership?"
  11. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,811
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,321
    I own a Glock 19, it has no safety (at least how most think of a safety on a gun), but if you prefer a 1911 I won't stop you from buying one. Even though, compared to a Glock, there are two additional steps you have to complete before firing a 1911 (activate grip safety, flip thumb safety), if that's what you want in a gun you should be able to buy one.
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,926
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,612
    I won't stop anyone from buying these Pieces Of Safety, either, but I'm not going to indulge the idea that there is anything but downside to all the features designed to keep irresponsible owners or their family/visitors from shooting themselves in the foot at the expense of being able to put the biscuit in the basket in a self-defense scenario. Either of those pistols are pretty equally "unsafe" in the eyes of these zealots, but they are both much more worth having on hand. Someone cracks you in the head with a baseball bat, your spouse or teenager or babysitter could actually pick up that 1911 or Glock 19 with the expectation of being able to make it go "bang" in the generally right direction.
  13. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,448
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,025
    And after complying with the safety features of the 1911 (I love mine!), I have a reasonable belief that it will fire.

    However, as it seems, the same can not be said for the safe guns being discussed.
  14. cjgator76
    Offline

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,429
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +571
    That's a fair point, at least as to some.

    The gun rights folks, like the abortion rights folks, tend to be hyper-vigilant in checking the tent for the regulatory camel's nose. I think that's what's going on here.
  15. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,811
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,321
    On average my Glock is more reliable, I don't have to depress any grips or flip any safeties, and it holds twice as many rounds as your nickel plated sissy pistol. The point is I don't care that your gun is less likely to go bang when the trigger is pulled, just like I don't care if someone wants to buy a "safe" gun filled with electronics. It's your money, your life, buy what you'd like.

  16. PacificBlueGator
    Offline

    PacificBlueGator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +41
    Ironic, isn't it. There are hundreds of children killed each year by accidental gun deaths, and were this any other product, cigarettes for instance, government intervention would be seen as due diligence to reduce health risk and death for the overall benefit of society by either making the product safer or restricting the use. This product, designed to help prevent accidental injury and death, is instead attacked for being an affront to gun rights. It just seems contradictory to our normal process to reduce risk, but I think you are right, that any tampering with a traditional gun or gun ownership is perceived as taking away gun rights.
  17. tegator80
    Offline

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +2,859
    I think the appropriate analogy for cigarettes would be:

    People are addicted to nicotine but die from the effects of smoking. So technology has developed an electronic cigarette that delivers nicotine but without the harmful smoke. The only problem is that the electronic cigarette is not reliable and doesn't work as well as conventional means. Do you force all smokers to use electronic cigarettes because they are safer or do you let the market decide?
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. PacificBlueGator
    Offline

    PacificBlueGator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +41
    I think the analogy would be the tobacco industry has the political wherewithal to squash a safer product from launching into the market (they don't). E-cigs seem to be making it in the marketplace, to the point that the FDA is now ready to regulate the use, as the inactive ingredients are a potential health concern.
  19. Tasselhoff
    Offline

    Tasselhoff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +440
    IF the "smart" guns work, they will make it to market. Of course it would help if a certain demographic was not trying tell everyone else "Guns are evil but if you have one it must be this type".

    Again. if this is such a great advancement in technology (and I do not think it is) then why not market it to the police forces? NO ONE beside the cop who is issued the gun should be handling it. Right? He/She would have the gun on them all day, they could wear the watch, it would keep any bad guy who got their hands on the gun from using it. If it is so great...shouldn't cops get it first?

    It makes a little more sense in that scenario than as a home or personal protection piece where multiple family members may need to have access the gun or the gun may be needed in the middle of the night in a home invasion. (Granted, they will need to up the caliber from the measly .22 listed in the article.)
  20. tilly
    Offline

    tilly Superhero Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22,137
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC via FLA
    Ratings Received:
    +6,265
    I don't own guns, but with three children in my house, I might be inclined to buy one of these.
    I am much more concerned about my kids getting hold of my firearm, then the off chance an armed assailant crashes through my window in the dead of the night, to steal possibly literally tens to hundreds of dollars of meaningless possessions.

    This is a great idea for the non gun enthusiast.
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page