Smart Guns: Life Savers or 2nd Amendment Violators?

originally posted by: Sunwolf
I wonder how well the electronics in such a device will handle heat ,recoil and sooty carbon residue.

recoil is a non issue. we already attatch durable high tech electronics such as tactical lights, lasers and even holographic sights to many weapons. small electronics have come a long way.

A SMartGun with biometric workings will never become mainstream.

There will be incidents where the gun will fire when it shouldn't.

There will be incidents where the gun won't fire when it should.

And not least...
ITSHTF situations where an EMP has occurred is certainly within the realms of possibility, rendering the gun inoperable when it is most needed.
Therefore any Smart Gun Owner will be smart enough to ALSO own guns without biometrics. And we ar back to square one.

Not even I think that the SmartGun falls within the 2nd amendment "well regulated".

a reply to: JesseVentura

3 letters for you all.. EMP
While I like the idea of no unauthorised access 1 emp blast and you can no longer defend yourself and guess who can easily deploy that technology..

First they will require you to buy a "smart gun", next they will push for the right to disable the gun from working remotely to "protect" children at school etc. Finally, you can still own firearms (smart firearms only) but you can only use them where we allow it.

a reply to: JesseVentura

It's hardly a new concept-Video Games and movies have already explored this idea.

Sure it could work; but with all technology there is a way around it- Gun runners could become gun hackers as well.

This, of course. is the future of guns. And, of course, it will
be hackable.

I see no downside here, except for functionality. As the first few
posters stated...I don't want to rely on a computer chip when
my life is on the line.

But, in a few years, this tech will be mainstream.

It is actually a *boon* for the 2nd amendment, as it takes away
the innocent lives lost by children who stumble upon unresponsible
gun owner's firearms.

And what a cool bright young man...

originally posted by: BlueJacketPracticing gun safety is the best form of security.

Smart guns solve the wrong problem: guns aren't dangerous because they are shot by the wrong people, they are dangerous because they are shot at the wrong people.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: BlueJacketPracticing gun safety is the best form of security.

Smart guns solve the wrong problem: guns aren't dangerous because they are shot by the wrong people, they are dangerous because they are shot at the wrong people.

Usually its WHERE they are shot at. Make them so unless youre a cop in certain places they wont fire. such as school zones our outside in the wilderness away from others.

Only two things can stop a determined human being from doing what they please.
1) physical restraint
2) the laws of physics

And then knives, and then flying shoes and then .....

And lets not forget the 3rd President of USA when he said,



I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

The world is never going to be "safe". Nature is cruel. People all have different levels of tolerance for unknowns and the most you'll get from nature about why is crickets. Its cruel. Its painful. But its life.

a reply to: awareness10


Oh god yes.

originally posted by: JesseVentura
An 18-year-old Real Life Vigilante invented a smart gun that allows only authorized users to fire their weapons. Will this save hundreds of lives or is this infringing on our Second Amendment rights? Today I invite young inventor Kai Kloepfer (kaikloepfer.com) onto #OffTheGrid to get the lowdown on his biotech breakthrough. Would you own a smart gun?

300 million non smart guns in US, wont have an impact until far down the road

originally posted by: rival
This, of course. is the future of guns. And, of course, it will
be hackable.

It might be, but I wouldn't say it definitely will be.

It is actually a *boon* for the 2nd amendment, as it takes away
the innocent lives lost by children who stumble upon unresponsible
gun owner's firearms.

We actually don't know that for a fact. It's a fine bit of speculation and assumption, but that's all it is.

I don't blindly agree that it's a boon for the 2nd amendment, looks more like a slippery slope to me.

If we really want to protect innocent children from irresponsible gun owning parents than we need to deal with the source of the problem - the irresponsible parents.

No problems. First, as a trial run, all LEOs have to use nothing but 'smart guns' for five years. Any LEO who uses a 'dumb gun' on the job goes to prison. No excuses.

And, of course, then you have to bar any claim of 'he was reaching for my weapon'. Any LEO who injures or kills anyone and tries that one gets 20 to life, no parole.

If, after five years, the LEO community still wants that, then smart guns for everyone. If not, it's off the table forever.

Weapons are wonderful analog machines when properly designed and manufactured. I don't think it wise to further complicate matters as we have done in the automotive world.

When you start adding tech to something so refined you are only asking for trouble.

I don't want to have to enter a password to shoot the guy who is shooting at me.

originally posted by: 123143I don't want to have to enter a password to shoot the guy who is shooting at me.

Now, how often have you been shot at then?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: 123143I don't want to have to enter a password to shoot the guy who is shooting at me.

Now, how often have you been shot at then?

Do you own any guns?

a reply to: 123143

So, you were never shot at. Then why worry about passwords to begin with?