Strange Smartgun Video

[Discogodfather]

Just watched this video on youtube from a channel I subscribe to. This one just seemed so out of touch with any concept of reality:

1) I guess you would need two surgically implanted devices in both hands to transition from right to left
2) If the battery goes out, it fails "safe" or "operational" (why would anyone choose safe?)
3) How easy would it be to just open the gun up and re-convert it to a non-smartgun? Probably pretty easy.
4) Who in their right might wants unnecessary surgical implants?

Weird and unsettling ideas from people who don't seem to understand guns.

[ChuckDizzle]

Looks awesome. I don't know why so many of you hate the idea of a gun that can only be fired by those authorized to use it. Of course the tech isn't practical yet. That doesn't mean the technology shouldn't be developed.

[Mitch]

I don't think any rational person has any objection to the technology itself, it's simply that laws are already on the books mandating smart guns and only smart guns once something resembling smart gun technology appears on the market.

On the other hand, the KISS principle is pretty important when it comes to firearms. Personally, I am not interested in adding electronics to my firearms.

[BretByron]

Yay, implants and electronics in firearms. What could go wrong?!!


**** that!

[Dutch3]

Yay, implants and electronics in firearms. What could go wrong?!!


**** that!

Seriously.










.

[kustomkat1950]

So what happens, when and if, "they" jam the rf signal, rendering it useless...?

I'll stick to traditional methods. I hate tech!

[Merc1138]

Looks awesome. I don't know why so many of you hate the idea of a gun that can only be fired by those authorized to use it. Of course the tech isn't practical yet. That doesn't mean the technology shouldn't be developed.

If it were simply a matter of someone developing the technology, and it being completely optional to use, we wouldn't care. Unfortunately there are already laws in place that mandate the use of it. Or have you forgotten all about the Armatix nonsense already? Same thing goes for the microstamping bull****, no one would care if it wasn't for laws mandating its use.

[Kokopelli]

Someone will hack it and make a fortune selling an app.

[ChuckDizzle]

If it were simply a matter of someone developing the technology, and it being completely optional to use, we wouldn't care. Unfortunately there are already laws in place that mandate the use of it. Or have you forgotten all about the Armatix nonsense already? Same thing goes for the microstamping bull****, no one would care if it wasn't for laws mandating its use.

So don't support the laws. The same mentality of those who blame guns for violence is on display for those who blame this technology for the laws our owners are putting on us.

[IVC]

4) Who in their right might wants unnecessary surgical implants?

Um, women?

[IVC]

Looks awesome. I don't know why so many of you hate the idea of a gun that can only be fired by those authorized to use it. Of course the tech isn't practical yet. That doesn't mean the technology shouldn't be developed.

This comes up all the time - we don't want *mandates*.

A simple litmus test is whether the developers of technology go to SHOT show to push their wares or to Sacramento for photo-ops with the anti-gun politicians. Similarly, whether the profit motive is free market demand, or regulatory scheme based "demand."

Case in question: Belinda Padilla, the CEO of Armatix.

[IVC]

That doesn't mean the technology shouldn't be developed.

As a side issue, what particular problem would "smart gun" solve that isn't already solved by keeping guns locked up in a safe (or any variety of "smart locks" and "smart boxes")?

[Mitch]

So don't support the laws. The same mentality of those who blame guns for violence is on display for those who blame this technology for the laws our owners are putting on us.

The laws are there, whether you support them or not.

[Merc1138]

So don't support the laws. The same mentality of those who blame guns for violence is on display for those who blame this technology for the laws our owners are putting on us.

"our owners"? What? Of course I don't support these laws, who the hell would other than a liberal? And even though I don't support such laws, they already exist. Me choosing not to support those laws doesn't change that fact.

[ChuckDizzle]

As a side issue, what particular problem would "smart gun" solve that isn't already solved by keeping guns locked up in a safe (or any variety of "smart locks" and "smart boxes")?

Several police officers are killed each year with their own side arms. Retention techniques only do so much and the risk for your gun to be taken from you in a fight is always there.

Quicker access could be one as well.