The only *smart gun* I'll ever own is the auto targeting 1,400 yard scope attachment.
http://tracking-point.com/
My eyes are getting old.
FBHO & FHRC
The only *smart gun* I'll ever own is the auto targeting 1,400 yard scope attachment.
http://tracking-point.com/
My eyes are getting old.
FBHO & FHRC
Since at its core guns don't require any digital components, wouldn't any underground illegal gun market just have those components stripped off/bypassed?
This would only help that super unlikely situation that someone gets a gun from a police officer and tries to use it immediately.
was pretty much about to post something very much like that.
while technology intrigues me, especially since (or so descriptions say) you can program it to accept more than one person (and make them programming temporary if one so wishes), even in judge dredd world it works a bit... differently from the way I'm reading this particular smart technology we have available at this time.
I think its a good idea... in concept. I just don't think its anywhere near ready to be put into actual police circulation, let alone make it mandatory
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose here.
The problem isn't trigger happy people, the problem is guns getting stolen/used by the wrong people.
The officer conflict is a scarecrow tactic. Nobody said they wanted to issue them to officers as a testing ground, except the people worried about it. And even if they were going to do that, it's a good way to implement it in a more controlled environment first.
Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads"Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab
Well there's no law directly stopping Colt but there is a law that makes it against their own interests. This law was the reason the NRA lobbied against Colt's smart gun technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Je...of_Handgun_Law because everything is for the children.
People keep asking 'who is going to fund it'
5 Billion in research over 10 years is about $3 per person. Less if the research costs less, or is subsidized, or over a longer period.
Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads"Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
They are afraid that their guns could be remotely deactivated so they can't defend garageland against the evil evil government when they park their Bradley tank in their garden.
I don't know how this would necessarily reduce violent crime and accidental shooting.
You can still commit crimes with your gun and you can still accidentaly shoot someone with your gun.
If they find a reason how smart guns prevent terrorist attacks "Muh ammendment" isn't worth a thing.
I smart gun seems like something that should be a collaboration between a good Tech Company, like Apple or Google, and a gun manufacturer.
Apple has proven it's ability to make very reliable biometric tech. I mean, imagine if the fingerprint scanner to unlock the phone didn't work 1/4 of the time? The outcry against Apple would be huge (people literally can't function without their phone anymore).
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
Yes, there fingerprint tech is pretty good for what it is. It has been my experience that it takes more than one try about 1 in 8 or 10 times. This is pretty unacceptable when the loss of a second or two can be the difference between life and death. Even 1 in 100 is unacceptable. I fire enough rounds (at least 1000) of a specific ammunition through my guns to be sure of a lower failure rate than that before I carry that gun/ammo combination for defense purposes.
or the far more likely situation of a toddler shooting them self or someone else when they find a parents firearm, or prevent the scab of a person that breaks into your home and finds your gun then takes it and sells it and it winds up in the hands of a gang member who WILL use it to shoot at police or other people.
literally those two scenarios are playing out right this very second across the country.
Wasn't there a movie where this was the premise? Stallone or Schwarzenegger.(ty google autocorrect?)
I'm not seeing the problem. He's not trying to force cops to test a gun that doesn't exist yet...and he'll be out of office long before any testing on such a weapon would begin. He's just saying.. "hey...what about the idea for this technology? Can we make it happen someday?"