|
Here's my thoughts, all of my firearms may be called upon for duty in a defensive role at some point so all of them must be 100% reliable. I'll grab whichever firearm is closest to me in the event of an emergency. As of right now the "Smart gun" technology doesn't exist and the ones that have been tried have failed to be 100% reliable and cost prohibitive. Does this mean that one will be built that won't be 100% reliable? No. Will I buy one? No. Should they be mandated? Absolutely not. If you truly want to keep your firearms out of the hands of unauthorized users, lock them up. Use a biometric safe if it makes you feel better (although I'm not positive this technology is 100% reliable).
As I recall the original purpose of "Smart guns" was so that if a police officer's duty gun were taken by a criminal it couldn't be used against said officer. This is truly a noble pursuit since I can see no better use of the technology than to keep safe those that strive to protect us. However if the technology were reliable you would see those guns in the holsters of Police officers worldwide I would think. "Smart guns" have been a miserable failure thus far.
As a collective whole firearms owners need to stop using the terms "Assault Rifle". This term bring to mind the firearms in the hands of combat troops which are select fire weapons. The rifles commonly referred to as "Assault Rifle" are generally gas operated semi-automatic rifles. Call them ARs, AKs, Rifle, Modern Sporting Rifles, call them whatever you like as long as it isn't an "Assault Rifle". The sooner we stop describing our rifles as "Assault Rifles" the sooner they will be accepted by the mainstream (not that we need acceptance from anyone) and perhaps they will stop being vilified.
Just my 2 cents,
Stu
|