Smart guns, how stupid are we...?

Discussion in 'Cast & Blast' started by Roper, Feb 25, 2014.

  1. In case you're living in a cave and haven't heard the latest, listen up. The latest tactic in the gun control movement is Smart Guns. There's a movement in political circles to ban the future sale of any guns that don't have the "smart" technology.

    An example of such a gun is the Amatrix iP1, a $1400 22 caliber (now there's a self defense caliber for you) gun with a $400 watch that only allows the wearer to fire the gun. The idea and selling point, according to the government, is that your kid can't pick it up and kill his sister. Great idea, but why not just control access to a gun instead. Like the title asks "how stupid are we"?

    But here's where the whole idea goes south of the Constitution.
    In September of last year, Apple introduced a technology that would let police remotely disable protesters iPhones. So if the police think that you might film them while they’re doing their thing, they could set up a “no pictures” zone by sending a wireless signal to disable the smart phone cameras in a certain vicinity.

    I don't like repeating myself, but "how stupid are we"?

    It's already been stated that
    military and police will not be required to have smart guns. In battle they need to be able to pick up any fellow combatant's weapon and use it. So, our guns get "turned off" and theirs stay operational.

    Since savvy criminals have already figured out how to rip off peoples credit card information without touching the card. How long before they figure out how to disarm potential targets with smart guns?

    How stupid are we?

    Let's talk a moment about reliability. Does your cell phone work all the time? Does a 787 have battery problems? The best technology comes with certain startup issues at first. Are you willing to bet your life on a smart gun? Are you willing to be electronically disarmed when you need it most?

    How stupid....well, I hope you get my point by now....

    ( I don't know why this text formats the way it does...)
  2. It would all depend on if the guns had a connection to any sort of computer or satellite network. If they were just some sort of bio-lock type thing, then what you are afraid of couldn't come to pass without unrelated technology. I'm not saying that guns couldn't be created that could be remotely disabled somehow. But having a gun that only works when a specific person (or persons) uses it isn't automatically that sort of "remote disabled" gun.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the technologies aren't connected unless they were created to be connected. You can easily have one without the other.
    ribka likes this.
  3. I agree, Roper. We need "smart" people, not "smart" guns.
    Skysoldier and triploidjunkie like this.
  4. So Josh, would you buy one? Could you afford one...? What if that is your only legal choice? Don't you think "...shall not be infringed..." is compromised here? Just asking...
    Phil Fravel likes this.
  5. Good point about whether restricting availability only to smart guns gets crosswise with the 2nd Amendment. Courts shy of SCOTUS are finding NSA in compliance with the 4th, so as it stands we cannot rely on either the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch to protect the Constitution. The need for smart people with dumb guns is unprecedented.

  6. Are you asking "what if my only legal option was to buy a gun that could be shut off by the govt"? Seriously, that's a huge jump from the topic of a gun that won't fire for anyone but the owner. But if you want an answer, yeah, I'd be against that. As would the courts.

    I'm just saying there are enough things to worry about without making mountains out of molehills. Trust the free market. If nobody wants this, nobody will buy it. Trying to stop technological advances because someone is afraid of them is stupid. Doesn't matter if it's RFID enabled gun locks, e-cigarettes, or the ability to 3-d print a lower receiver. I won't stand with any side who tries to hobble technology that way.
    Bob Rankin and Dan Nelson like this.
  7. For the record, I think a gun that won't fire unless you are wearing the watch that it is paired to is stupid.I will eat my hat if it becomes a popular item.

    Rather than messing around with that, I'd rather see somebody improve biometric recognition to the point that one could choose to set a gun to only fire if an authorized person was holding it. While not useful for every situation, I could see advantages to knowing that you, your wife or (for example) your neighbor, could fire your HD gun. But your kids could never have an accident with it and a criminal could never turn it against you in the middle of a crime.

    And no, I wouldn't want to see that as a requirement for guns either. But it would be a useful and legitimate item to bring to market. And I wouldn't want to prevent the technology from being available for use if someone wanted it.
    Dan Nelson likes this.
  8. Josh, I understand your passion for technological development, I'm just not in agreement. I'm not so sure our George Jetson or Dick Tracy future is so bright. Who would have thought when wireless telephones first came out that our privacy would be so compromised? NSA snooping, ID thefts, credit card fraud, all are not things I'm thrilled about. I work in an industry that is challenged by and often let down by technology. Often because what was promised was never delivered or was compromised so someone high in the food chain could profit immensely.

    Time will tell if my doubt was valid. For now I'll stick with John Browning's technological triumph...and hold most government in suspicion.

    I encourage the conversation, please, everyone let's not get personal about sometimes happens here.
  9. "NERF" solutions don't work and aren't feasible, however that is the precise approach that the current administration is taking. Too much gun-involved crime? Take guns away from the potential victims. Unemployment too high? Provide more free benefits for those not interested in working. Folks over-spend their housing budget? Bail them out. As for guns, "tools" are NOT the problem; perps using them are. Focus on the problem, not the tool. If any kind of gun control worked, Chicago, New York City, LA, and DC would be the safest places in the USA. I wouldn't visit there, let alone live there. Several years ago, an employee cut his thigh while attempting to cut a posterboard with an Exacto knife; he had positioned the posterboard on his THIGH! The company banned Exacto knives rather than chastise the employee for attempting to perform an unsafe & stupid act. It didn't work. Same principle, folks. There's a lot of merit in "Here's your sign."
    triploidjunkie likes this.
  10. Didn't you guys see Skyfall? His biometric Walther PPK was pretty handy when it fell in the wrong hands while in that pit of Komodo Dragons.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    plaegreid likes this.
  11. My wife would be the last person I'd want to allow using my gun (at me). Lol. :)
    Josh likes this.
  12. It is true that technology is a dual edge sword. In an example I noticed just today, the same hacking technology (in a broad sense) that allows the snooping and credit card thefts that we all hate could also be used to shut down Syrian air defenses (according to a story making the rounds). A task that might have taken a boots on the ground incursion 40 years ago or an airstrike 20 years ago can now be done from half a world away with zero chance of American military lives being lost in the process.

    Good and bad out of the same technology. A story that can be told over and over again.
    Roper likes this.

  13. I would have to agree,that sounds like a bit of a stretch from rational thinking. Some of the technology out there for shooting is really cool. The smart gun might work great for some but to think they will make that the only way to buy a firearm is rediculusl!
  14. I have an implant that allows me to fire most any weapon that I can figure out or have trained to shoot. It's called a brain. My brain is smaller than most, slower than most, more stubborn than most...but by God I'm using it and doing things for myself.
  15. There is no way to regulate "common sense" with either laws or technology......and you can't fix "stupid".
    Jim Wallace, Skysoldier and Ed Call like this.
  16. Thanks for the sig line, Roper!
    Roper likes this.
  17. But here's where the whole idea goes south of the Constitution.
    In September of last year, Apple introduced a technology that would let police remotely disable protesters iPhones. So if the police think that you might film them while they’re doing their thing, they could set up a “no pictures” zone by sending a wireless signal to disable the smart phone cameras in a certain vicinity.

    This situation has already happened; Boston Marathon. Ever wonder why there was only CCTV video coming out of the area? Not only was cell service interrupted, but the local area networks were taken down too. Keep us safe big-brother...
  18. My 2 cents: It's not something I would want, but it's just a high-tech safety device. Seems to me the debate is between it being required or being available. As to required, I think we all agree, no. As to available, what do I care? I choose to lock mine up, I don't insist you do. Leave'em layin' loaded if ya want. The transfer bar on my single action revolver is a high tech safety device, and I like it. It's no affront to my constitutional rights, nor was it mandated by some sinister consipiracy. And I can still shoot myself in the leg if I want, I just need to make a concious effort to do it.

    Jeez, guys...
  19. Bob Rankin likes this.
  20. Does the government know about this?
    Porter, Islander, Skysoldier and 2 others like this.

Share This Page