Smart gun discussion

[fatogato]

In any system, there are vulnerabilities for failure. As simple as modern firearms are, they are still relatively complicated. As it stands, there is the potential for failure in several areas already. I would not want to add another potential fail point in a system that I may have to rely on to protect my life.

[FalconLair]

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.

that about sums it up

personally, i worry enough already about a malfunction let alone having the added worry about some chip or electrical process too

like he said, to each his own - bring it on, if it can survive the market without mandates, good for them

[baekacaek]

There is only one real problem with smart guns: the inevitable legislative mandate. Other than that, I don't care, I believe in choices. If someone wants a smart gun, let them have it. Has nothing to do with me.

That's the entire issue in a nutshell. The media have characterized gun owners as being opposed to smart guns, because we are deplorables who simply want more people to die in accidental shootings, especially children. But without the legislative mandates none of this would even be controversial.

This. I dont care if people choose to buy smart guns or not. As long as I am not forced to buy one, I am OK.

The only thing that bothers me is the mandate.

[Dano3467]

The batteries will catch fire being on all the time EDC

[MrOrange]

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.

You didn't ask that in your OP. The closest you came was this part:

"I'm thinking:
Durability with calibers up to .45 ACP (minimum. .44 mag would "prove" the tech to me a lot better than a .22 ya know?)
Reliability on par with a Glock, Sig, or 1911
NO laws mandating anything, anywhere. Not options, not sole option, no mandates
Electronic reliability better than current phones, car keys, etc.

The reliability is the biggest problem aside from legal mandates to me. Currently there's several options from bracelets to rings to watches for proximity RFID, and biometrics for fingerprint readers (I've heard palm readers but they're very much still in development?). I see several issues with all of these:"

Then at the end:

"What would it take for you to actually want one?"

But you didn't specifically ask "ASIDE FROM LEGISLATIVE MANDATE CONCERNS, what else ya got?"

The Magna-Trigger is durable, reliable, and the sooper-dooper magnets on the adjustable rings will probably be still going strong for the next ice age, regardless of any mud, blood or beer on the shooter's hands. I didn't try them through gloves and the gun's been sold, so any testing is out. Given the adjustablility of the rings, you could probably just spread 'em over top of a even a thick glove. For that matter, you could have the magnets sewn into your heavy gloves, besides the ones on your rings. Note ringS, get one for each hand for everybody you want shooting yer piece, and Robert's your Mother's brother.

The biggest drawback to the rings that I see is for mechanics and others who work with their hands where ring avulsion is a concern. Then again, even if you had an employer who let you carry, I imagine the springy, open-ended design would come off your finger fairly easy and cause a very minor injury. Or just slap a magnet directly to the gun whilst wrenching, sacrificing the user-only feature for that period.

As for the average criminal being able to get around it, I suppose any who are a notch above basic crack-head would be able to take the gun apart and disable it, given the time, place and some mechanical ability. I always figured that if a Magna-Trigger gun got stolen, your average burglar wouldn't think anything was different about it until he tried to use it. If only he tried to shoot a cop with one...

The only problem, and this comes 'round to the state mandate part, is that Magna-Triggers don't meet any of the current legal definitions of a smart gun.

[NorCalAthlete]

Point taken. I suppose I could have been clearer on that. Seemed obvious in my mind at the time.

[IVC]

Believe me I know, but I've made all the same arguments you guys have here.

I'll quote one of his latest posts so you guys and gals have an idea of where we're at over there:

The only real disagreement here is
1) I don't think the tech will necessarily impact reliability to the degree you guys think it will.
2) I don't buy into the immediate fear that we will suddenly see all kinds of laws requiring people buy only those guns, especially when, as one of the people in the video said, The gun companies could (and should) remove them from state markets where laws like that are proposed.
3) There would be a market for these guns, SFPD has shown interest, and I would be interested in one as well. I sincerely doubt I am the only person out there that would want one, even if current gun owners don't like the idea.

Somehow this leads to this much backlash. I'm a calm guy most of the time, but the sheer level of hate I get for just disagreeing with some of you guys pisses me off.

Point one is an opinion. "I don't think the Sun is as hot as you guys think..." doesn't make a trip to the Sun feasible for carbon-based life forms, but it's an opinion. It's wrong, though. Provably wrong.

Point two is false. We did have a law and we do have a precedent of requiring non-existing technology to get a gun on the roster. It's again provably wrong.

Point three is another opinion by someone who doesn't understand market. Having "SFPD show an interest" and having a few kooks willing to buy something doesn't create "a market." It's again completely wrong to assume "there is a market" because "I would buy it." The best way to test it? Let the guy build the technology. He can mortgage his house and corner the market all by himself - the whole of SFPD and their "interest."

Overall, one cannot argue with a self-righteous person who will make provably wrong statement, then stick to them by using: "well, yeah, that's like my opinion dude." I shudder to think how he "debates" issues where his arguments are not completely wrong to begin with...