The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons

[color of law]

The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons
"Smith & Wesson still feels the wound it suffered two decades ago when it decided to invent smart guns."

The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons

Firearms makers have resisted Silicon Valley-sponsored digital innovation that could transform public safety.

www.bloomberg.com

No, Smart Guns don't exist for good reasons. One reason is if I become incapacitated another good person would be incapacitated from using my gun to save both of our lives.

 

[HP995]

Real smart guns (not smart-lock guns) will exist eventually, but if we're not careful, our helpful Fudd gun-group friends will doom us to an irrelevant future without proper legislative support.

We are living with ancient tech and a tech revolution is beginning. One day current firearms will no longer be sufficient to ensure liberty and maintain some realistic defense for citizens against criminals, invaders, and GuvGoneWild. It will be like a small knife in a gunfight or gun in a supergun fight scenario, but over a lot faster.

But our laws represent an interpretation of the 2A (the NRA mindset) that may not allow us to legally keep up with the times as these changes occur. The 2A itself would allow for future firearm tech, but all the tacked-on infringements and qualifications probably will not.

 

[Ghost1958]

Smart guns won't happen as long as we are a capitalist nation.

Everytime a company says they will manufacture them they suffer financially because gun owners don't want them.

A local dealer here made the statement he was going to take on the dealership for a version of. 22 smart guns. In two months he declared to anyone who would listen he would not, ever, do so.
Why? He was on the verge of going out of business simply because of making that statement.

 

[eye95]

From the OP-linked article:

Nobody blames the free market. Nearly half of gun owners in the U.S. would consider buying a smart gun, according to a Johns Hopkins University study.

From the Johns Hopkins University study linked in the article:

Nearly 60 percent of Americans, if they buy a new handgun, are willing to purchase a smart or childproof gun – a weapon that is only operable in the hands of an authorized user – new Johns Hopkins Bloomberg [emphasis mine] School of Public Health-led research suggests.

Did they qualify the respondents by asking if they were actually going to buy a handgun?

Did they qualify the respondents by asking if they had ever bought a handgun? Or were they assuming a stated intent to buy a handgun in the future translated to a near certainty that the person would ever buy a handgun?

Did they point out the additional expense of such a handgun before enquiring whether a person would buy a “smart handgun”?

Did they point out the lack of reliability of such technology?

I suspect that the answer to all four questions is no.

I could not in good conscience sell a “smart gun” to anyone. The last thing in the world I’d ever want one of my customers to have to say to a BG is, “Hang on a second. I’ll be right with you—as soon as I can get this fool gun to read my fingerprint. Maybe if I wet the tip...”

So, yes, the informed free market is to blame for the lack of smart guns.

I like my guns to be dumber than rocks. I’ll provide the intelligence, thank you very much.[/quote]

 

[OC for ME]

Bloomberg+survey+guns = bogus. The results desired were the result received. The outcome was based on a "web-based survey in January 2015, getting responses from 3,949 people."

Me being from the south, and me being a Southerner in the truest sense of the word, since the late 1700's, I am confident that they did not poll real gun folk. Urban and suburban dwellers. Liberals and FUDDs...heck, i would not be surprised if one of my FUDD kinfolk did not participate in the anti-gun survey...have I stated in the past that my vast number of kinfolk in South Carolina are infested with FUDDs? Yeppr sure did, on several occasions. Their definition of CCW is a cased/unload shotgun on the back seat of the truck on the way to/from a tree stand.

 

[FreedomVA]

The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons
"Smith & Wesson still feels the wound it suffered two decades ago when it decided to invent smart guns."

The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons

Firearms makers have resisted Silicon Valley-sponsored digital innovation that could transform public safety.

www.bloomberg.com

No, Smart Guns don't exist for good reasons. One reason is if I become incapacitated another good person would be incapacitated from using my gun to save both of our lives.

you can always throw it at the attacker left eye to blind him and run like Forest Gump...i think that's a smart way to use a gun when out of ammo

 

[Deanimator]

The very epitome of an answer to a question nobody asked.

"Smart guns" are as necessary as velociraptor repellent, with a similar level of popular demand.

 

[HP995]

The root problem is accepting the word "smart" to mean tech that imposes a limitation, a lock, a gun control objective. S&W was trying to appease the Anti crowd and guv rather than delivering true innovation to its own customers. Compare "smart bomb" - using tech to enhance delivery to target. Tech should enhance performance and increase or better direct power, not hinder. I disagree that a bio-locked gun constitutes what we should consider a "smart" gun.

People are opposing a bio-locked gun, yet supporting and reinforcing the deceptive Anti/Appease branding of "smart" as a lock. This makes adding modern tech to firearms look scary, and sets us up to get left in the dust as revolutionary tech becomes possible. Changes are coming (not bio locks) that will eventually make current gun designs obsolete for personal defense. We need these in civilian hands too, not just for guvs and thugs. Never let the enemy control the vocabulary!

 

[eye95]

Thank you for that insight.

I will stop referring to the technology as “smart guns”. If I ever feel the need to reference the use of the term by others, I will write “so-called smart guns”.

I think “biometrically programable” is more apt.

My biometrically programable iPad often tells me that it does not recognize my fingerprint, that I should enter my security code. Fortunately, I don’t have to tell some BG who may be trying to kill me, “Hang on a sec. I’ll be right with you,” as I waste time opening my iPad. So, it is only a minor annoyance, not a threat to life or limb.

 

[FreedomVA]

The root problem is accepting the word "smart" to mean tech that imposes a limitation, a lock, a gun control objective. S&W was trying to appease the Anti crowd and guv rather than delivering true innovation to its own customers. Compare "smart bomb" - using tech to enhance delivery to target. Tech should enhance performance and increase or better direct power, not hinder. I disagree that a bio-locked gun constitutes what we should consider a "smart" gun.

People are opposing a bio-locked gun, yet supporting and reinforcing the deceptive Anti/Appease branding of "smart" as a lock. This makes adding modern tech to firearms look scary, and sets us up to get left in the dust as revolutionary tech becomes possible. Changes are coming (not bio locks) that will eventually make current gun designs obsolete for personal defense. We need these in civilian hands too, not just for guvs and thugs. Never let the enemy control the vocabulary!

20 years from now, there won't be mechanical guns, the Death Ray is coming

 

[solus]

20 years from now, there won't be mechanical guns, the Death Ray is coming

sorry FreedomVA the military has had the death ray/sound weaponry for decades...refinements are in use in cuba/china and has been and is currently used against our foreign service officers causing long term debilitating ailments for these individuals.

 

[FreedomVA]

they don't have this

 

[solus]

ummm...
might listen to Present Reagan's 1983 initiative...

https://www.history.com/speeches/reagan-announces-star-wars

you presume the project was halted...

 

[FreedomVA]

and to keep onto this topic with a twists.......when new weapon technologies like Darth Vader Death ray becomes mainstream, would it still have the protection of the 2A?

 

[FreedomVA]

ummm...
might listen to Present Reagan's 1983 initiative...

https://www.history.com/speeches/reagan-announces-star-wars

you presume the project was halted...

I know the Star Wars program is still around and advancing

 

[color of law]

and to keep onto this topic with a twists.......when new weapon technologies like Darth Vader Death ray becomes mainstream, would it still have the protection of the 2A?

Per the USSC, the simple answer is yes.

 

[HP995]

We have existing and emerging tech like AI, auto targeting, directed energy, drones, and many more. Some combination and adaptations of these will eventually reshape individual arms, at least in combat. Criminals and LE will also have them. Will we?

 

[FreedomVA]

hellzzzzz no, we get water gun