Are Smart Gun Laws Hindering Technology?

[Shawndiver]

FIRST off, let me state I DO NOT ADVOCATE, OR ENCOURAGE the development of a "smart gun".

After reading the article about how the winners of a "smart gun" technology development contest are refusing to allow their names to be released, it got me thinking.

One of the main problems of this issue are the draconian laws it would unleash if it were implemented. No manufacturer in their right mind would want to be the receiver of the massive backlash already witnessed by the pro-gun community, therefore it makes no sense to waste resources trying to develop this technology for the retail market.

Without going into the already discussed disadvantages of circuitry in firearms (kill commands, hacking, dead battery, etc.) it seems to me that if the government really wanted this technology to develop, they would remove the all or nothing laws they have implemented, and allow the free market to decide whether or not this concept is actually viable.

Regardless of the disadvantages, there always seems to be a plentiful supply of first adopters of a new technology. (Witness the massive lines around Apple stores whenever anything "new" is released...) Why not remove the massive legal consequences and let the public decide?

While I understand that asking the government to keep their overreaching egos and control issues in check, it just seems to me that a new technology might have a better chance of being accepted if it didn't have drastic, unacceptable consequences attached to it.

Let me state again, I AM NOT advocating smart guns, I am perfectly happy with my purely mechanical firearms, have NO INTEREST in an electronic gun, and would not even consider a well thought out, viable product with the strings that the government have attached to it!!

[Mitch]

Of course the laws are holding back technologies that might well be very beneficial for some people. If legislators really wanted to see smart guns, they should STFU about making them mandatory. Let the market decide.

And you don't have to make such a big deal about advocating smart guns or not. "Smart gun" could mean any of many different platforms (I was working on a "smart gun" design for a while, had nothing to do with matching shooter with weapon). There might be some aspects to "smart gun" technology that would be very attractive to gun enthusiasts like us.

But not as long as it's being shoved down our throats against our will.

[13withinfinity]

If it was a primary function, no. A secondary function to augment the firearm as a just in case measure and not required in the mechanical function of the firearm itself? Sure.

[TacticalThug]

What "smart" technology could be put in guns that would make the gun better??

[vliberatore]

The problem with smart guns is that the people advocating for them are not the types of people to purchase firearms.

[russ69]

What "smart" technology could be put in guns that would make the gun better??

Seriously? If you had an open mind there could be some advantages. Let's say you have a target pistol used for shooting at the range, wouldn't be cool if the gun would only fire when pointed down range at the target? I'd feel safer using public ranges.
None of us want it to be mandatory but technology can not be stopped or advanced by government decree.

[tmh1]

Seriously? If you had an open mind there could be some advantages. Let's say you have a target pistol used for shooting at the range, wouldn't be cool if the gun would only fire when pointed down range at the target?

I think that this would be a TERRIBLE idea. The more the Government and Technology try to do all of the thinking for individuals, the less many individuals are seemingly able to think for themselves. And then the lawyers run amok with lawsuits for everything, as opposed to something which made America great (but is now seemingly lost): PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

So some schmuck no longer has to think about waving his gun around because his oh-so-cool-and-technologically-advanced target pistol won't shoot unless pointed downrange. And he gets used to this "safety", instead of the one between his ears. Now when he picks up a "normal" gun, he doesn't worry about where it is pointed because it will only fire if pointed downrange, 'cause that's what he's gotten used to.

I just don't think that you will ever be able to truly legislate intelligence, nor will technology ever be able to replace it. Nor can you ever protect stupid folks from hurting themselves (although that seems to be what CA politicians seem to thrive on - as the stupid folks are the ones who continue to vote them into office).

[CK_32]

Yes