Smart gun discussion

[Cokebottle]

No rational member of the gun community is against smart gun tech per se.

I would tend to disagree with this, because....

Pretty much every member is against having it mandated by the government.

We are (hopefully) not as stupid as we were when we allowed previous gun laws to slowly infringe piece by piece until we have been left with a single chocolate chip of the cookie that used to be gun ownership in California.

When "smartgun" technology reaches the point that it actually functions, even unreliably, that will be the next feature added to the California (and other states') safe handgun rosters.
There is also the likelihood that the technology will include the ability to accept a remote shut-off signal.... a permanent transmission in "gun free zones" and other sensitive areas (leaving the law abiding person defenseless against a criminal with a 50 year old .38), and of course, such a signal could be duplicated and transmitted by any criminal wishing to improve his odds.
I'm not even getting into the tinfoil hat realm of EMP attacks.


As I said, there is no advantage to the technology that is not already addressed by the commercial availability of safes, trigger locks, and plain and simple responsible gun ownership. If your goal is to keep your children from using your guns, that technology has existed for hundreds of years.
If your goal is to keep a criminal from using your gun... well, when your gun is useless they will simply steal another one.

So yes... THIS rational member of the gun community is 100% opposed to the commercial development and marketing of "smartgun" technology at this time.
It is not, and by virtue of design, can not, be 100% reliable.
A gun/ammo combination that is 95% reliable slips to being only 90% reliable if the Smartgun technology is also 95% reliable.


When it is reliable AND FLEXIBLE enough (multiple users) for LE/MIL to be willing to stake their lives on it to the exclusion of all other options (same technology used on their rifles, shotguns, Tazers, baton locks, and pepper spray), THEN we can talk about commercial implementation.

[Mitch]

When it is reliable AND FLEXIBLE enough (multiple users) for LE/MIL to be willing to stake their lives on it to the exclusion of all other options (same technology used on their rifles, shotguns, Tazers, baton locks, and pepper spray), THEN we can talk about commercial implementation.

Why? Who made you or the gun community at large the arbiters of what can be explored commercially or not? I rather believe that is a question for the investors alone.

So you think smart guns are unreliable dumb guns. Fine. Don't buy one. I have seen multiple MSM columnists insist they would buy smart guns once they became available. Well yay for them. If someone wants to develop and market a smart gun, and other people want to buy them, that's none of my business. Free market and all that.

Once again, there is no problem here except the legal mandates.

Knee-jerk "Hell no, no smart guns ever because I DON'T LIKE THEM!" responses play right into the hands of those who would demonize gun owners as intolerant extremists.

[Mitch]

PS: I think Desert Eagles are lame, too, but I won't holler if you want to buy one.

[Cokebottle]

Knee-jerk "Hell no, no smart guns ever because I DON'T LIKE THEM!" responses play right into the hands of those who would demonize gun owners as intolerant extremists.

Not knee jerk.

I don't like them for very specific logical reasons, and will not accept them until those issues are addressed by the design.

If Elon Musk wants to spend a billion dollars of HIS money to develop working technology, that's fine.

But instead, the technology will likely be developed by inexperienced students who can't see the forest for the trees using tax-supported facilities not with the ultimate goal of safety in mind, but instead with the goal of creating remote-controllable technology.

[mshill]

Let them bring it to market and compete without mandates. If they can survive in the market... good for them. I would never buy one.

[Euphoria526]

Why? Who made you or the gun community at large the arbiters of what can be explored commercially or not? I rather believe that is a question for the investors alone.

So you think smart guns are unreliable dumb guns. Fine. Don't buy one. I have seen multiple MSM columnists insist they would buy smart guns once they became available. Well yay for them. If someone wants to develop and market a smart gun, and other people want to buy them, that's none of my business. Free market and all that.

Once again, there is no problem here except the legal mandates.

Knee-jerk "Hell no, no smart guns ever because I DON'T LIKE THEM!" responses play right into the hands of those who would demonize gun owners as intolerant extremists.

Agreed.
I'm not a fan for the legislative aspect as well as the possibilities of being hacked. The idea in theory is great. But the reality imo would be more grim than the execution of the smart gun.
You are right, it's the legislation behind it that is the scary part, And their forcefulness that would come with the final developed product.
But that's MY opinion. I won't buy one. But if someone else wants to. Good for them

[MrOrange]

I would tend to disagree with this, because....


We are (hopefully) not as stupid as we were when we allowed previous gun laws to slowly infringe piece by piece until we have been left with a single chocolate chip of the cookie that used to be gun ownership in California.

When "smartgun" technology reaches the point that it actually functions, even unreliably, that will be the next feature added to the California (and other states') safe handgun rosters.
There is also the likelihood that the technology will include the ability to accept a remote shut-off signal.... a permanent transmission in "gun free zones" and other sensitive areas (leaving the law abiding person defenseless against a criminal with a 50 year old .38), and of course, such a signal could be duplicated and transmitted by any criminal wishing to improve his odds.
I'm not even getting into the tinfoil hat realm of EMP attacks.


As I said, there is no advantage to the technology that is not already addressed by the commercial availability of safes, trigger locks, and plain and simple responsible gun ownership. If your goal is to keep your children from using your guns, that technology has existed for hundreds of years.
If your goal is to keep a criminal from using your gun... well, when your gun is useless they will simply steal another one.

So yes... THIS rational member of the gun community is 100% opposed to the commercial development and marketing of "smartgun" technology at this time.
It is not, and by virtue of design, can not, be 100% reliable.
A gun/ammo combination that is 95% reliable slips to being only 90% reliable if the Smartgun technology is also 95% reliable.


When it is reliable AND FLEXIBLE enough (multiple users) for LE/MIL to be willing to stake their lives on it to the exclusion of all other options (same technology used on their rifles, shotguns, Tazers, baton locks, and pepper spray), THEN we can talk about commercial implementation.

Thanks for proving my qualifier on the community.

[wpage]

Life is complicate enough without smart guns...

[Jimmy's]

There is nothing smart about so called smart guns, Period!

[MosinVirus]

Costs (not just monetary, but those in reliability and other areas) outweigh the benefits.

[NorCalAthlete]

So...for those who bothered to read my original post thoroughly...ASIDE FROM LEGISLATIVE MANDATE CONCERNS, what else ya got? For/Against? Cost is a big one agreed. $1800 for a .22? Pffffffffft. I wouldn't even want to carry a $1,000 Kimber just because I know if I ever have to use it, it's got a good chance of getting beat up and confiscated for evidence at least temporarily, and it's harder to replace a $1k gun than a $500 Glock. Let alone an $1,800 sidearm. I can get 4 Glocks for $1,800.

[laurelpark]

Let them bring it to market and compete without mandates. If they can survive in the market... good for them. I would never buy one.

^^^^^This. I figure if someone wants to spend the money to develop new technology, introduce it to the marketplace, and try to make it succeed, that's their right. If nobody wants to buy it, that's our right.

[njineermike]

I don't think smart firearm hardware will ever be accepted by the commercial public until the military and law enforcement community starts actually using it. If they aren't using it, there's a reason.

This. If it isn't reliable enough for them, it's not reliable enough to bet my life on it.

[ElvenSoul]

They read too many Judge Dread Comics!

[IVC]

Why? Who made you or the gun community at large the arbiters of what can be explored commercially or not? I rather believe that is a question for the investors alone.

Investors need market and consumers. If consumers don't want it for any rational or irrational reason, the investors won't be able to do much with the idea.

Consumer backlash had hurt quite a few manufacturers in the past. The same goes for gun stores.