Obama pushes for smart guns (with a twist)

[Reeve]

How do I get the bracelet onto the other hand quickly?

Lets put things in perspective. I actually take in depth training classes at minimum once a month. Part of our drills is firing strong hand and off hand only. It is already difficult enough to simply get a holstered weapon off your right hip into your left hand when you don't have the use of your right hand.

Trying to shift a bracelet from one arm to the other with use of one hand while under threat is basically going to be an impossibility in reality.

You don't need it to be on your left wrist. It just needs to be within a certain distance of the gun, and I imagine you'll be steadying your left hand with your injured hand anyway, since you probably aren't that great a shot with your offhand.

[TITAN308]

Yeah, what idiot would push for things like airbags in cars, and seat belts, and crash avoidance systems. Government shouldn't be involved in such things. Oh wait...

That is easily the dumbest analogy to date when it comes to the discussion of smart guns. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

Even more so, that isn't even the point of the article.

[Glnger]

Reliability. The NRA has been pretty successful in lobbying against smart gun technology, and there really hasn't been much funding.

I wonder why a gun manufacturing lobbying group would be against technology that will help to prevent gun thefts, essentially putting more guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

step 1. Profit
step 2. Profit
step 3. Profit.

[TITAN308]

You don't need it to be on your left wrist. It just needs to be within a certain distance of the gun, and I imagine you'll be steadying your left hand with your injured hand anyway, since you probably aren't that great a shot with your offhand.

And this may be something they expand upon, however all the designs I've seen require the wireless device to be on the same wrist as your shooting hand.

Because if someone takes the gun from you, then it would work for the attacker because of their close proximity to you.

[Phookah]

Did the the 2700 some odd guns that Obama handed the the murderous terrorist Mexican cartel members have "smart technology"?

And let me guess Obama has a few companies lined up ready to "develop" this technology.

...I'm sure none of those companies have board members close that have personal relationships with Obama.

...I'm sure no tax dollars will be funneled them via some hostile taxation.

..and I'm sure they wont go bankrupt months later having never produced a single product mysteriously burning through all the startup capital.

Funny isn't it?

We need smart technology to verify gun ownership but we don't need any verification for things like voting ...or collecting welfare ...or entering the country ...or ya know pretty much anything that translates to power for tyrants.

Hilarious, given all those things you just listed require quite of a bit of verification. So do you just not know what you are talking about, or were you purposing trying to lie to make your position sound good? I'd just like to know if you're just uninformed or a liar.

[Belize]

All it needs to do is recognize black people, and lock up if it's ever pointed at one

Shitposting aside, eh. I'm going to reserve judgement until I see one in action, and how it functions.

[Reeve]

And this may be something they expand upon, however all the designs I've seen require the wireless device to be on the same wrist as your shooting hand.

Seems like a pretty easy fix for an extremely marginal situation anyway though.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder why a gun manufacturing lobbying group would be against technology that will help to prevent gun thefts, essentially putting more guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

step 1. Profit
step 2. Profit
step 3. Profit.

If anything, I imagine smart guns might increase gun sales as families feel more comfortable having a gun in their house.

[iceberg265]

Which is why bias and anecdotal scenarios are dismissed in rational discussions.

I disagree that anecdotes should be dismissed, taken with a grain of salt certainly, but not completely dismissed. I would also argue that compassion and empathy definitely have a place in a rational discussion as well.

- - - Updated - - -

If anything, I imagine smart guns might increase gun sales as families feel more comfortable having a gun in their house.

This is my opinion as well. Smart guns would be much safer around children.

[TITAN308]

Oh I see the NRA boogy man has made its way into the thread:

PS: I am not a member of the NRA

[chazus]

I think people are freaking out and reacting WAY ahead of time. Like, a decade ahead of time.

The technology doesn't exist yet. The current prototypes have shown that it doesn't work right now, hence the need for research.

If you're concerned about a bracelet, or the bracelet system doesn't work, they probably won't use it.
If you're concerned about an RFID chip, or the RFID chip system doesn't work, they probably won't use it.
If you're concerned about a biometrics, or the biometrics system doesn't work, they probably won't use it.

The entire point is to find a system that DOES work. They can't do shit until that's established.

[Reeve]

Because if someone takes the gun from you, then it would work for the attacker because of their close proximity to you.

Put your arms behind your back!



CAN'T SHOOT ME! CAN'T SHOOT ME! CAN'T SHOOT ME!!!

[Glnger]

If anything, I imagine smart guns might increase gun sales as families feel more comfortable having a gun in their house.

highly doubt that would out pace the reduction in sales from people replacing stolen guns and buying guns for other people.

I get your point tho, wouldn't it be amazing (certainly a bad idea) to not worry about a family member finding and purposely or accidentally shooting something or someone so you could leave your gun in a place where you can easily get access to it in an emergency.

[kail]

My personal problem with smart gun technology:

From what I got, the idea is OK for you. You're only issues would be the limited tech.

[TITAN308]

Put your arms behind your back!

CAN'T SHOOT ME! CAN'T SHOOT ME! CAN'T SHOOT ME!!!

That would be hilarious. Attacker takes your gun, then the Benny Hill theme music comes on and you basically try and run away from him just out of range.



- - - Updated - - -

From what I got, the idea is OK for you. You're only issues would be the limited tech.

Yes I am not oppose to firearms becoming technologically advanced just like any other product I use. My only statement is they have a looooooooong way to go before it reaches those acceptable perimeters.

[enragedgorilla]

Yeah, that seems like politically the wrong move.

What does he have to lose ? He can ask for the sky now...if he gets what he wants...great , if not ? It wont cost him an election.

[Reeve]

Yes I am not oppose to firearms becoming technologically advanced just like any other product I use. My only statement is they have a looooooooong way to go before it reaches those acceptable perimeters.

Eh, I'm of the opinion that in a world that already has working RFID tech (my company uses a ton of it very consistently), working gun tech, etc. that it's not a huge leap to develop a gun with the tech that would work fine. Hell, my car uses RFID for its key and hasn't failed yet.

I mean we live in a world where SpaceX went from building its first rocket to landing vertically on an ocean platform after sending a payload to orbit in about 5 years. Just a couple years ago self driving cars were just a glimmer in the eyes of futurists and now they've driven millions of miles on roads. Creating a gun with better safety features doesn't seem like it's 50 years away. It seems more like a 5 year problem if people actually get to work on it.

[TrumpIsPresident]

The entire point is to find a system that DOES work. They can't do shit until that's established.

My guns all work perfectly as is.

But there is truth in your statement however misconstrued it's conclusion is.

There will inevitably be some sort of tax dollar allocation given to one of Obama's buddies for the purpose of "research", undoubtedly funded by a new punitive tax on guns or ammo or licences or something to that effect, which will fail to produce a working product but still manage to make all the right peolpe rich.

That is, how you said, the point in "finding something that works".

[TITAN308]

It seems more like a 5 year problem if people actually get to work on it.

And those are all private companies.

Here is the thing about all the people blabbering about the NRA - none of that has to do with the private industry. Anyone at any point is welcome to step up to the plate.

[Reeve]

And those are all private companies.

Here is the thing about all the people blabbering about the NRA - none of that has to do with the private industry. Anyone at any point is welcome to step up to the plate.

Colt made the attempt, and the NRA and gun owners threatened to boycott them for having the temerity to even suggest it might be a good idea to look into the technology.

[enragedgorilla]

I am all for new tech, smart guns...I just do not see the tech at a level NOW where it is viable or accomplishes what the "claimed goal" for the tech is.
Also the current amount of non smart/dumb firearms in circulation , being made now and in "collections" is more than enough to keep a criminal with a gun , in business for the next 200 years (number pulled from my ass but ...reasonable) and ...add in the fact that it is not JUST the US who makes/buys "dumb guns" I again do not see where this would help ..any perceived "crisis" , criminals are causing the issue,criminals will not "buy a smart gun" ...nor will a smart gun's tech stay "bad guy proof" for very long.

I am hoping that with the first generation of personal Laser weapons this will not be an issue, however as it stands ....throwing a rock at high velocity will remain a troublesome nut to crack when it comes to the "smart" tech.