|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 23, 2014, 03:49 PM | #26 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,813
|
There is nothing stopping the market from taking smart guns to heart. Other than our concerns about their reliability, our personal opinions of what is cost effective, and the actual cost (see cost-effective).
And really, the market is, and has always been doing that. If it worked, if people wanted it, and were willing to pay for it, we would have them already. At this point in time, we have ONE gun being marketed. (for what seem to me to be waay too much money) Only time will tell if that gun (without govt support) will remain on the market. Personally, I don't think that particular one will last long, but I have been wrong before...just not often... My problem is with non-gun owners dictating through the law what we should, and should not be able to own, simply because they think its a good idea. (of course, I feel that way about all the gun control laws, nothing new there...) About the NJ law that says "after 3 years all guns sold will have to be smart guns...", has anyone looked to see if the NJ police get a pass on that? Usually the police get exemptions from gun control laws, but sometimes the antis "goof up" and don't exempt the cops. Lautenberg anyone? If the NJ police don't have an exemption already written into that law, I say fight like hell to keep one from being added! Force them ALL (if possible) to live under the same rules as the rest of us. Ensure if you can that everyone has to live with both the intended and unintended consequences. If they can't get special dispensation from the law, the police might just turn out to be a big ally in getting it overturned. I doubt the chiefs would be much help, I'm sure they would work hard for an exemption, but the rank & file might be more on our side. It's their butts, too.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
February 23, 2014, 05:42 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
February 25, 2014, 11:57 AM | #28 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I'm not paying extra money for a gizmo that may or may not work, can quite likely be shut off with a remote control. Maybe my tinfoil hat is too tight today, but I can't see any reason that the gov't wouldn't start trying to figure out ways to disable these so-called "smart" guns.
Fingerprints -- What if I'm a bricklayer or pineapple picker whose fingerprints are worn or gone? More importantly, what happens if my wife needs (& I do mean needs) my gun when I'm not home?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 25, 2014, 12:42 PM | #29 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I agree that a "smart" gun is a "dumb" idea. I really hope it doesn't go anywhere.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
March 18, 2014, 07:39 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2013
Location: Douglasville, Ga
Posts: 4,615
|
sorry to beat a dead horse again, but i was reading an article about the company that makes the armatrix trying to aquire funds to purchase remington outdoors,http://www.pagunblog.com/2014/03/11/...-on-remington/, after further searchng, it appears the only gun store in california to offer the smart gun has backtracked and says that they do not and have not ever sold the Armatrix iP1
heres a link to the article http://www.guns.com/2014/03/08/oak-t...maker-armatix/ the best thing from this article is The National Shooting Sports Foundation conducted a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans in October 2013 on smart guns. The results found that roughly three-quarters stated they would not buy a smart gun, would not trust the reliability of one, and that the government should not mandate such technology. they do not say, gun owners were polled, just that 1200 americans were polled, wish it went into the polling data, but still sounds like a WIN
__________________
My head is bloody, but unbowed |
March 18, 2014, 11:48 AM | #31 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
That said, I would certainly oppose any legislative attempt to make its features a requirement for other guns.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
March 18, 2014, 09:35 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
April 2, 2014, 09:14 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
I have acquaintances who work in gun control advocacy. Half a dozen on the Hill and one in major organization.
I have yet to hear them discuss this smart safety gun tech without mandates, and the "benefit" of a strategy of raising costs to gun owners, forcing registration and safety inspections. In regards to RFID, I eschew conspiracy theories, but for all we know some of these crazies could suggest requiring gun owners to have the chips implanted. Tin foil hat stuff? Considerer the guy who was just floating a bid on Freedom group seems to be this guy: http://www.wired.com/2009/12/positive_id/ Quote:
|
|
April 2, 2014, 12:54 PM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,813
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
|
|