Obama Puts His Weight Behind Smart Gun Technology

[SecularMotion]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama will use the power of his office to push for adoption of so-called smart gun technology that could eventually limit the use of a firearm to its owner, the White House announced Friday morning.

The move is intended to allow Mr. Obama to confront firearms violence in the face of fierce opposition to broader gun control measures. But critics of smart gun technology, including some police officials, are expected to fight a proposal that they see as unproven and an unwarranted restriction on the freedom to use firearms.

The initiative was unveiled on the White House website, along with a report from the administration’s law enforcement agencies concluding that the government should do more to spur development of the technologies. To that end, the Defense and Justice Departments will develop criteria for gun manufacturers who want to sell smart guns to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

The administration will also offer cash prizes and grants to gun manufacturers to spur development of the technology, which is intended to make a gun useless if someone other than the owner tries to fire it.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/us/politics/obama-puts-his-weight-behind-smart-gun-technology.html

[Eugene]

1. But but but guns are meant to be free!

...or so I'm told by the RKBA advocates.
They're going to fight this tooth and nail.

[hack89]

2. As long as they are proven as reliable as current guns in all situations

I don't see the problem. It will take a long time to get to that point however.

[CJCRANE]

4. They'll network them eventually.

Then they can just switch them off remotely.

Disarm the population at the flick of a switch!

[CreekDog]

138. you wouldn't own a phone that couldn't be shut off or locked from use

but you don't want guns to be able to have the same feature.

[lancer78]

140. Don't pay your cell phone bill

Your phone will get turned off pretty damn quick.

[CreekDog]

142. Your phone will still work

you can connect it to wifi, still use the password and locking features

the silence features and off/on switch will still work.

yours is a straw man, you oppose smart gun technology being available to anyone.

[lancer78]

144. Lol

I am not the fool who said someone wouldn't pay for a phone that couldn't be used. I don't consider those features you listed as an integral part of what a phones purpose is (to make calls).

Also, do not be so presumptuous to believe I oppose smart gun technology. I do support it, but do not want it to be networked or able to be hacked.

[Duckhunter935]

146. And my phone does unlock

Many times, that would not be acceptable in a firearm

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Current guns are not reliable in all situations.

[Duckhunter935]

65. Hell of a lot more reliable

Than any smart gun so far. So lets start there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Do you have the data?

[Duckhunter935]

81. If they were, they would be for sale

And Germany already has a law in olace if tbey reach that level of effectiveness. So far none have met that standard.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. No ...

If they were, they would be for sale

If they were CHEAPER they would be on sale. Smart Tech makes the weapons more expensive.

[EX500rider]

153. If they worked the police would be using them as weapon retention is a big deal for them.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

68. 'Not reliable in all situations.'

Ever carry a .38 Smith and Wesson revolver?

Nothing on earth (with moving parts) is statistically more reliable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. Actually, I have one ...

but have never felt the need to carry it outside of my home.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

76. No argument about carrying it or not....

...that's your choice.

Love those damn Smiths.

You may enjoy this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/nyregion/in-new-york-oldschool-officers-swear-by-the-vanishing-38.html?_r=0

[Duckhunter935]

83. That does not answer his question

Very simple and extremely reliable, add all of the electronics and interlocks makes it just as reliable?

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Yes, I did ...

his question was whether &quot I&quot Ever carr(ied) a .38 Smith and Wesson revolver?"

I responded that I own one.

As with all products, once a manufacturer has a compelling reason to invest in the reliability of a product, the reliability of that product will improve ... maybe not to perfection (which few guns are, .38 SW, not withstanding).

Which was my point.

[Press Virginia]

94. You went from arguing current gun technology wasn't reliable in all situations

to saying certain guns are not reliable in all situations.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. Okay.

[JonathanRackham]

177. So technically you have no data.

[Press Virginia]

89. situations such as?

i can't think of any reasonable scenario/environment where a current model firearm and the reliability of the technology would be less than 100%

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. There is a DUer, who will happily disagree ...

the fact that a current model firearm was less than 100% reliable, saved his relative's life.

[Press Virginia]

101. That's a specific gun. Your claim wasn't about specific firearm reliability

it was guns as a whole

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. Okay.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

96. Semi auto handguns...

....are very ammo dependent.

'Smokestacks.... limp-wristing.... failure to eject' are all semi-auto words,

BANG

That's a revolver word.

[Press Virginia]

99. The claim was current guns aren't reliable in all situations

Not certain specific guns.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

105. I know. I have this habit...

....of trying to 'lighten things up' occasionally.

Oh well.

There are always going to be situations in which anything with moving parts will not work properly.

Dirt, sand, water, crud.

There could be something caught under the ejector rod on a revolver, like a shirt tail.

The slide on a semi-auto could hit something on the way back, such as when firing from a barricaded position.

The cartridge could have no powder in it.

Or it could just be a cheap piece of crap gun.

[Press Virginia]

115. Yes. But those are specific to that particular gun not the technology as whole

[Press Virginia]

108. Aside from manufacturers defect, improperly maintaining the weapon

misfire due to ammunition or catastrophic failure as a result bad ammunition or blockage...I would put any glock or sig semi up against a revolver and with confidence

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

111. I'll bury my Smith in the mud...

...and take it out a month later.

It will still go BANG.

Semi's may have a problem with that treatment.

[Press Virginia]

113. You could do the same with an AK 47 and any glock or sig semi

there might be issues with the ammunition which is easily remedied with a mag change

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

116. Yes, but...

Revolvers are old school cool.

I win.

[Press Virginia]

117. You do win

can't argue with you one that point

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

118. Yay!!!

Have a great night.

CFS

[S_B_Jackson]

139. But what if your revolver were a Taurus???

would you still have the same confidence?

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

149. Never...

...owned a Taurus.

But a Ruger could be dropped to Earh from outer space and still work.

[Angel Martin]

145. Current guns are not reliable in all situations.

they sure aren't

and one reason for failure is the stupid "Hillary lock" on S&W revolvers

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2009/09/03/internal-gun-locks/

if a simple mechanical lock is not 100%, there is no way that some failure prone electronic doodad is not going to crap out at the worst possible time.

If Obama is convinced that this is such a good idea he should start by arming his secret service detail with these firearms.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

174. WILL NOT

own a Smith with the Infernal Lock Mechanism.

My son wanted a new lightweight Smith J-frame for summer carry.

He got my old Model 60 instead.

[Angel Martin]

175. I think some of the new J frames

have dropped the lock

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766181_-1_757768_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

and there may be a few others. But s&W have said they will not generally ditch the lock across the board

Of course you could alway remove the lock and have the "Hillary hole"

(and people on this board can't imagine why Hillary would be viewed as "anti gun" because she only supports "common sense restrictions&quot

[TipTok]

135. Same reason it took 80 years to upgrade the M2...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

No electronics in my firearms. Thanks...

[KittyWampus]

166. Your argument is the same as those who argued against seat belts.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

173. The technology....

...does not exist.

When it does, it has to be tested.

BTW; Seat belts were relatively ineffective at first, they did not really work until the addition of the shoulder strap and self adjuster mechanisms.

[TipTok]

197. Seat belts don't reduce the capabilities of a car...

It doesn't drive slower or get worse gas mileage or just stop working because of the addition of a strip of fabric.

The two are not comparable

[jtuck004]

3. As long as we have weapons without wisdom there is no safety that will ever be adequate. n/t

[Hoyt]

5. We might not take gun fanciers' guns like other advanced countries, but sooner or later we will tell

those gun yahoos that they are going to have to start making concessions -- like smart technology even if they don't friggin like it -- to keep people from getting shot by accident or unauthorized people from using their sick objects of obsession to kill innocent people. I'm tired of all the sick crud these gun nuts come up to defend their polluting society with their lethal weapons. I'm glad to see people like Clinton going against conventional wisdom -- oh, you have to coddle gun freaks, and not call them on their sick habit.

[hack89]

6. Sure - once you get public support for gun control perhaps.

don't see that happening for a very long time.

[Hoyt]

16. You just can't handle the thought of restrictions on your bad gun habits.

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

We need a 12 step program for gun addicts.

[beevul]

18. What 'bad gun habits' does Hack89 have, hoyt?

Please, share with us all, the things your crystal ball has revealed to you about hack89.

[Hoyt]

20. Well, his problems aren't as bad as yours. Supposedly, he doesn't need a gun in his pants

to venture out.

[beevul]

27. That isn't an answer.

What 'bad gun habits' does Hack89 have, hoyt?

Please, share with us all, the things your crystal ball has revealed to you about hack89.

Well, his problems aren't as bad as yours. Supposedly, he doesn't need a gun in his pants to venture out.

You may want to work on some memory exercises:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022165452#post12

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117240177#post41

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141323670#post67

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027247922#post46

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014964351#post235

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x418549 (Post number 4)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x407647 (post number 6)

At some point, I'm going to start thinking that this is either deliberate on your part, or you should consider turning in your car keys for the good of society.

[Duckhunter935]

67. He ran away?

[beevul]

128. What else is he going to do?

The truth speaks for itself.

Its not like hes going to reply:

"You're right, I keep doing it on purpose and I apologize"

or

"You know what? You're right. You've told me personally many many times and I couldn't remember. Maybe I'm not in the best position to be deciding things for others or society".


And so we're treated to an impersonation of "The Flash".

[pablo_marmol]

133. His tail spends so much time between his legs that his inner thighs must be horribly chafed. NT

[TipTok]

137. The bad habit...

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

... Is not complete agreement with Hoyt and his irrational fears.

Anyone who doesn't immediately conform is obviously deeply faulty.

[Duckhunter935]

66. So just what bad habits does bee have also

Tell me all mighty one that knows all

[hack89]

21. I have no bad gun habits

35 years and have never harmed a living thing intentionally or accidentally.

[Hoyt]

22. Well, your passion has helped put more gunz on the streets and in the hands of yahoos.

You need to accept you are part of the problem, and the solution.

[hack89]

23. I am part of the solution

I am a good role model for other gun owners.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

39. How is Hack part of the problem...???

Do explain, thank you.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

45. Thank you.

If Democrats would lighten up on 'gun control' they would find that there are many people willing to cross over.

[KittyWampus]

167. If you're not willing to embrace new technology that makes guns safer FOR SOCIETY

you are part of the problem.

Just as those who refuse to get immunized or refused to use seat belts.

It's that simple, really.

You and those of your opinions on this are in the position of those who argued against wearing seat belts and MANDATING their usage.

Same as immunization.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

169. The technology...

..does not exist yet.

There is nothing to embrace.

[Hoyt]

180. There is technology. However your fear of the boogeyman will not allow you to accept an already

infinitesimal risk of actually needing a gun might be compromised a tiny little bit because you have too much pizza grease on your hands when you pull your gun equipped with new technology. That is so important to you that you don't care it might save some 3 year-olds life. Gunners which are not willing to compromise the slightest bit, are a pitiful bunch.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

182. Please provide a link...

...to a handgun manufacturer's website...

....containing 'smart gun' technology.

I wash my hands after pizza.

I don't carry a sidearm because of any mathematically significant or insignificant risk. I don't care If I am in a totally crime-free bubble and all the grizzly bears are too busy smoking joints to bother me.

I carry a handgun because I am a law abiding American citizen. I carry a handgun because of the daily familiarity of doing so. My guns have killed no one. My cars have killed no one.

My jokes, however, have bored people to death.

[Hoyt]

185. I am sure George Zimmerman felt the same. Of course, my bet is you consider him a law-abiding

citizen and a model gun owner. You probably can't go without a gun any length of time. Finally, your comfort with a gun strapped to your body is not a legitimate rationalization for carrying or promoting gunz.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

190. George Zimmerman...

...seems (I say seems, I was not there) to have stuck his civilian nose into potentially police business.

Trayvon Martin....

...seems (I say seems, I was not there) to have been a kid walking home.

No, I do not support George Zimmerman.

Not at all.

[sarisataka]

183. Compromise...

Ok, what are you willing to offer for gun owners to support- let's say a law mandating by 2020 all new guns must have built in smart technology?
(to avoid quibbling we can assume the technology has been proven reliable under real world conditions)

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

171. My guns...

...sleep in a safe with walls three inches thick.

I would say I am looking out for society, thank you.

[Duckhunter935]

69. How has he done that?

Or are you going to run away again and not answer

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

172. Is Hack....

...handing out guns (oh, sorry, gunz)?

Being a law abiding gun owner is not being part of any problem, the same way a law abiding driver is not responsible for a wreck on the interstate that happened when he wasn't even there..

[Hoyt]

178. Company, your and Hack's love of gunz helps fund the gun industry, the NRA, militias, etc.

Yet, you can't live without a mess of the darn things, ando probably one or two strapped to your body when you go to the store. I get that your attraction/addiction to gunz is so powerful that you don't care how you fuel the gun industry, right wing militias, etc. Maybe some day you will wise up for for the good of society.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

179. I purchased my last handgun...

....about 25 years ago.

Not much fuel there, I would say.

What does this have to do with militias? Honestly, I'm not sure they even really exist.

Attraction? I'm attracted to my wife. That's about all I'm attracted to. Oh, wait, and a hot cup of coffee at 6 am.

In many areas of our great nation, many people, not just those of us who have been in law enforcement or the military, find carrying a sidearm as familiar a habit as wearing shoes.

[Hoyt]

181. I guess you missed the racist Bundy ranchers, just to mention one. Or, maybe you consider that

kind of junk, mainstream. This is not a war zone, Sarge. I've been around more gunz than you, can probably still breakdown a 911 blindfolded. But I grew up and don't need to play Army anymore.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

184. If it were a warzone...

....I would not be carrying a .38

Many more gunz (sic) than you. Sure, why not. In the Guard I qualified once a year or so if anyone remembered to notice.

[Hoyt]

186. The fact you qualified annually does not impress. There is zero chance you'd be in that kind of

situation as a private citizen here unless you are on militia maneuvers, or something. There is zero reason to shoot someone at long range in this country.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

189. I'm not trying to impress anyone.

I'm pointing out that I am not around guns much at all. Even in the military.

I taught classes in the military. First Aid. Search and Rescue. Land Nav. Real heroic shit.

Not.

I have a small number of firearms. Mostly languishing in the safe.

For decades.

Except the one I carry.

Long range? I have not shot a rifle in about 20 years except for annual qualification.

I don't carry rifles. I don't shoot rifles. I'm not even what you would call a 'gun guy.' Actually not at all.

Rifles are clumsy. They tend to bang into the car door on the way to Burger King.

Humor.

It's called humor.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. There is overwhelming public support for gun

Restrictions already

[hack89]

34. Not the kind Hoyt wants.

the public wants stronger background checks and not much more. Hoyt is an extremist when compared to the US public.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. The us is extremists about guns

all cultures have their insanity and for the us it's guns

[Press Virginia]

86. How so?

[JoFerret]

193. Don't be dim

Look at the stats on:
gun ownership
gun deaths
guns involved in marital disputes
ttoddlers killing more people with guns than terrorists
gun crimes
gun suicides
gun violence
gun sales
types of guns owned and used

Compare with anywhere in the world.

The US has become gun crazy.

Was a time when the NRA argued for gun sanity. But now we have gun insanity.

[Press Virginia]

194. So exercising a right to own a gun is extremist?

[EX500rider]

196. "Compare with anywhere in the world." OK...

Here we are compared to every country.....and the US is both below the avg and median in homicides.



http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

[branford]

92. Hold on, a few posts ago, you emphatically stated,

"There is overwhelming public support for gun restrictions already (in the USA)."

Your apparent hatred of firearms does not resolve such obvious contradictions, nor is it particularly persuasive concerning your positions.

Moreover, strong support for some restrictions such a universal background checks hardly implies similar levels of support for other measures like "assault weapon" bans, magazine limits, etc., no less anything resembling bans.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

114. Lol. I'm not sure what I was unclear about

There is overwhelming support for gun control. This is a fact. A Google search will demonstrate that I am correct.

My opinion is that this nations gun obsession is nutty.

None of these things are contradictory.

[Press Virginia]

119. What obsession? You seem to take issue with people exercising their right

[La Lioness Priyanka]

125. i take issue with people fetishizing guns and worshiping a version of the second amendment

that suits their fetish

[Press Virginia]

127. How many versions of the second amendment are there? And what constitutes

the fetishizing of guns?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

156. there is a version gun fetishists read and there is a version that RBG and I read

one version starts after 'A well regulated militia', and another version considers the entire text.

[Press Virginia]

165. Does the one you prefer say anyone other than

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

The Right of the People shall not be infringed?

Do you think the 2A was the only amendment that wasn't enumerating individual rights but, instead, stating a right held by those in service to the state?

[sarisataka]

157. You take issue with people fetishizing guns

So you are opposed Tim labeling people gun humpers, ammosexuals...and calling guns penis extensions for substitutes Etc?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

158. no. nt

[sarisataka]

159. So actually you don't

Object to fetishizing. It is only gun control proponents who believe in objectum sexuality with guns. I had a pro-control person assure me he believed a teen age girl used her hunting shotgun as a literal penis substitute...

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. But ... But ...

How will I be able to pick up my fallen brother's weapon and press the battle during the uprising against the tyrannical Federal government?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

126. wonder how quickly we would see a shift in gun attitudes if BLM advocated that all black men start

open carrying. isn't that sorta what happened in california under reagan, because the black panthers called for blacks being armed? i vaguely remember reading this somewhere

[lancer78]

141. The Black Panthers

showed up armed to the Sate Capitol. Republicans went nuts and Reagan signed the Mulford Act.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

150. "the Mulford Act."

Which is still sucking to this day.

[sarisataka]

161. It is amazing

How quickly gun control proponents line up to support Republican legal travesties when it comes to guns. Reagan's Mulford Act and Bush's Patriot Act to name two.

[beevul]

164. Don't forget bushes no fly list. N/T

[DashOneBravo]

129. Care to explain that Sir?

One of the reasons smart firearms don't work for an Infantry unit is because you may have to pick up someone else's weapon and fight with it.

And we are brothers. Black, yellow, brown, white ..

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

73. Have you ever actually seen people do this??? (the rifle photo)

NO???

So what are you worried about?

[spin]

176. There are well over 300,000,000 firearms in our nation without this technology. ...

They are not going to go away anytime soon.

When S&W installed their internal lock on their revolvers many buyers just bought used S&W revolvers without the lock. Mandate that all new firearms must have smart technology and the price of used firearms will skyrocket.

Most firearms are used very little and with just a little care will last for decades or even centuries.

[houston16revival]

7. But wait

once the bad guy with a gun shoots the good guy with a gun

none of the other good guys can use the dead good guy's gun

and you've got one very angry bad guy with a gun

I don't think this will help much

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. It will help save enough people from being killed by toddlers

On this issue, I think one person (could be another toddler) saved is enough to prompt us to go forward and develop this technology as far as we can.

[Press Virginia]

29. If it only saved one person then the program

could not logically be seen as a success.

15000 homicides -1.

Wow

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. More of a success than doing nothing in the direction of smart guns. . . . nt

[Press Virginia]

33. Teaching children about guns would do more

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. Then go do that too. But not if it is just a propaganda ploy to get them into the cult.

[Press Virginia]

38. If it saves just one life why would you care if the education

led to their ownership of guns in the future.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. I wouldn't care. I'd be glad it saved a life. Read my post carefully this time. . . nt

[Press Virginia]

46. Then what "cult" are you referencing

37. Then go do that too. But not if it is just a propaganda ploy to get them into the cult.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

50. It's not a cult...

...it's a tradition.

There's an entire world of difference between the two.

[Press Virginia]

52. I know.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

60. .

[Press Virginia]

61. Those are gun owners

exercising their rights.

Do you think anyone who exercises their rights belong to a cult of some kind

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Ridiculously excessively exercising their rights. Which makes it a cult.

People have a right to join Scientology and even go on TV and jump on couches.

[Press Virginia]

70. How does one "excessively" exercise a right?

Do members of the press "excessively" exercise their rights? How about people who protest organizations and policies they disagree with?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

100. Reply to post #63 which is more reasonable than those cultists. . . nt

[Press Virginia]

104. I didn't ask him what his opinion of your statement was

[Bernardo de La Paz]

106. You just like to argue. His reply to me refuted your argument. Go refute his argument.

Post #63.

You can do it.

You have a great argument against him, I'm sure.

[Press Virginia]

110. His reply wasn't relevant to the question I asked you about your statement

how could he refute an argument where none exists?

[DashOneBravo]

130. This gun owner thinks they are douche bags

And stupid ones at that.

They don't seem to realize that some LEOs and military are trained to look at the hands. If they have a weapon there they get shot.

[Press Virginia]

131. They may be douche bags. They may just be guys who are making a political

statement in support of their rights.

How are they different than any protester or advocate of any other cause?

[DashOneBravo]

134. Both have single point slings

And rifles not slung over their backs. The difference is its not a sign or banner it's a weapon.

They dude on the right has the rifle in his hands standing in a coffee shop. Isn't that brandishing a weapon?

[Press Virginia]

136. They're posing for a picture. Exercising the right to carry their guns in public

to express support for their rights to own guns and carry them in public is no different than a sign or a banner.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

63. The Open Carry movement in the United States...

....specifically rejects Long Gun Open Carry (as shown above) for many reasons.

I agree with them completely.

Carrying a long gun in an urban area has incredibly negative safety implications, especially when enterin/exiting a vehicle, using both hands to complete a task. etc. It also looks odd.

(The above rejection of LGOC does not include afield in the wilderness.)

[Duckhunter935]

147. A lot of that goes back to

Texas. Many people wanted the option of open carry of a pistol, unfortunately that was illegal. Carrying a long gun was and they used those to make the point of how stupid it was. Not saying that was all, but it was a lot.

[Duckhunter935]

71. I am sure the "gun safety organizations" are

[Bernardo de La Paz]

43. Smart gun technology is not just about children using guns

Properly done it would make a big dent in the stolen gun market and reduce firearms theft.

It would prevent criminals from taking a police officer's gun in a fight to injure/kill someone.

I'm sure other people could think of other ways it would reduce gun violence and gun crime and gun deaths.

[Press Virginia]

47. Only if people were forced to buy them

And turn in what is already owned by the public.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

51. Sure....

..that sounds easy.

[Press Virginia]

54. They have big plans...big, silly plans

but big

[Bernardo de La Paz]

62. Oh, yeah, binary thinking strikes again. The perfect is the enemy of the good

Lay off the binary thinking. It is notoriously ineffective.

No law has to be 100% effective to be useful.

No improvement has to be 100% implemented to be declared not useless.

The binary thinking 'logic' you employ would mean no seatbelts because there would still exist cars without seatbelts.

It would mean no cigarettes because some child would get a hand on some and smoke. Or the flip side it would mean no age restrictions on cigarettes because it would infringe an adult's ability to send their child around to the corner shop for some smokes.

Nobody is going to be forced to buy a gun.

But I do see a day when a gun buyer would have to buy a smart gun. It would not infringe on their right to own and responsibly operate a gun.

So please quit throwing up illogical 'arguments' just for the sake of arguing. Especially binary purist fallacious talking points.

[Duckhunter935]

75. You just confirmed the argument

You see a time when the choice will be taken away.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

80. Nonsense. It does not take away the choice/right of purchasing a usable or even useful gun. . . nt

[Duckhunter935]

90. Takes away my choice of the most

Trouble free weapons.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

103. Ridiculous. That is like saying anti-lock brakes take away your choice

Try buying a new car without anti-lock brakes. Very difficult, if it is even possible.

Anti-lock brakes are an extra system that introduces trouble (extra maintenance, false negative warning lights, etc.).

[Duckhunter935]

107. That anti lock brakes

Are now the standard is they indeed work and are safer. Even when they do fail, they still work, just as dumb brakes. If the technology on a smart weapon fails, the weapon fails to do its proscribed function, unlike those brakes. Am I right?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

112. Wrong.

Anti-lock brakes sometimes go crazy and I think in some cases the computer will not allow the car to start.

Further, remember the Obama initiative is to develop the technology to a future refined workable safer standard, not mandate it as it currently exists.

P.S.: I think you mean "prescribed function", not "proscribed function". The former mean "intended", the later means "prohibited".

[Duckhunter935]

148. Never heard, post some links

Not the I just saw something on the internet.

[Press Virginia]

82. It's not illogical. Given the option to buy a proven technology with a long record

of effectiveness that meets the consumer's needs vs an emerging technology with glaring issues related to shared use and an unproven record of reliability on top of higher prices, few will go with the latter.
Furthermore, with some 300 million "dumb guns" already in the hands of the private citizenry, your desire to cut down on gun theft would rely on fewer people stealing those guns...which would become even more desirable among those seeking to steal guns.

[EX500rider]

163. The number really aren't there...

By the end of 2015, about 265 children under 18 picked up a firearm and shot someone by accident, and 83 of those shootings were fatal, according to research compiled by the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. Some 41 of those deaths involved the shooters themselves, and most of the shootings involved toddlers or teens who were playing recklessly with the guns.

Compared to:

Unintentional fall deaths
Number of deaths: 30,208

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,804


Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 38,851

Seems you could save many, many more life trying to make less of those deaths happen.

(unless of course it's less about deaths and more about an irrational hatred of firearms)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

168. Smart gun technology is not just about children using guns

(as already stated elsewhere in the thread)

[EX500rider]

187. So what is it about?

Because with over 300 million guns already in the US criminals will just use those.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

188. Read the thread, sigh. Your issue has been dealt with extensively. . . nt

[EX500rider]

195. I have read the thread..

....and since most people own the guns they shoot someone with i don't see the purpose.
Toddlers don't shoot enough people to mandate this and criminals will just buy or steal guns without this un-invented technology.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

198. It's no news you don't see the point. Reread the thread and try discussing the points

Reread the thread and try discussing the points that refute the 300 megaguns argument.

[yallerdawg]

8. We are not taking your guns away!!! ( we know you're on the way)

This is all:

“As long as I’m your president, I will do everything in my power to make our communities safer and keep guns out of the wrong hands,” Mr. Obama wrote in the Facebook post.

[cstanleytech]

9. These type of guns have sounded cool in scifi but

how do you addresses the estimated 300 million guns that are already out there?
Also how do you write this up as a law that doesnt get tossed by SCOTUS as being unconstitutional for some reason?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. How?

You start somewhere and achieve what you can and then go on to the next thing.

The alternative is to give up.

[Hoyt]

17. Exactly, we don't have to achieve 100% immediately. 1% is an improvement.

[Press Virginia]

31. We've had improvement of more than 1%

with current gun technology

[cstanleytech]

53. Well Doh, now why didnt I think of that its so simple!!!!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

79. The concept is simple. Implementation is hard, of course.

I can explain tides, but I can't explain why you didn't think of it, sarcasm marker or no sarcasm marker. I can't explain why you threw up a bogus argument.

It is ridiculous binary thinking to say things like "what about the 300 million guns already out there?" as some kind of reason to not move forward developing socially useful technology.

It is as ridiculous as a person opposing the introduction of seat belts because 'what about the millions of cars out there that have no seat belts?'.

It's like saying don't have breathalyzers and alcohol limits for drivers because there are stone cold sober drivers aged 64 1/2 years old who cause deadly accidents.

[cstanleytech]

85. It is not bogus it is a valid problem and one that will be extremely difficult to overcome. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

109. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

It is bogus to say that bad old guns mean that we can't make good new guns and require them for new purchases.

We didn't take bad old cars off the streets because they had no seat belts at the time we made it a requirement for new cars to have seat belts.

[Duckhunter935]

91. By all means, make them

Don't force people to buy them. If they are so great, people will buy them. So far they are not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

98. Requiring properly developed smart guns be the only guns for sale does not infringe rights.

1) The emphasis is on "properly developed". We are a long way from that point.

2) A competent adult has a right to buy a usable gun that they can operate. That right would not be infringed by properly developed smart gun technology. The gun they would buy would be usable and could even be useful. They would be able to operate it in a responsible way.

[SunSeeker]

10. K & R

[Jitter65]

11. And if you are really progressive, you should put your weight behind the President on this. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Unless you're familiar with the technology in its current state.

In which case, it's vaporware.

Another five years and that might not be the case. We'll see.
You'll know the 'rubicon' has been crossed when the military and law enforcement start buying them. When it's that reliable, consumers will follow. And I don't mean a mandate, I mean law enforcements buying them because it works, and will reduce officer deaths when some shithead grapples with the officer's gun and tries to use it against him or her.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. A truly smart gun could be fired by more than one person

For example, a husband and wife, but not their children and not a thief.

[JDPriestly]

15. Now this is the right direction for ending gun violence.

So many of our gun deaths are due to unauthorized people getting the guns of others.

I can imagine a gun that can only be used by the person whose fingerprint matches a code on the gun. That would be a move in the right direction. The question is whether that kind of ID function could be installed on the existing guns.

But there has to be some sort of safety factor like that. It would also stem the illicit traffic in guns to some extent. The problem is that moving into an era of these kinds of guns would take too long unless some kind of technology is developed to impose this restriction on existing guns.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

49. I had a laptop...

...that I had to wipe my finger over a postage stamp sized chip in order to use it.

After doing carpentry all weekend, it did not work.

My hands were too rough.

[JDPriestly]

121. I can believe that. There could be exceptions -- other biological traits that could be

read by a chip.

This kind of technology could reduce gun thefts.

[Duckhunter935]

124. How do you power it?

[JDPriestly]

132. That will have to be determined by its inventors.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

151. "How do you power it?"

The laptop?

A battery roughly 9 inches by about 1 inch by 2 inches or thereabouts.

It clips on the back, I think.

A 'smart gun?'

Double A batteries.

[Duckhunter935]

77. Most fireams deaths

Are suicides, how would this prevent this? Please get your numbers and facts correct at least.

[JDPriestly]

120. Suicides probably can't be stopped through any kind of gun regulation.

There are lots of ways to commit suicide.

But this would help prevent accidental gun deaths. It would also stop some of the illegal transfers of weapons that put them in the hands of criminals and those who really should not have them. The Second Amendment may insure the right to bear arms, but it does not insure the right to sell them to criminals.

[EX500rider]

154. "But this would help prevent accidental gun deaths" Of which there are so few in reality..

By the end of 2015, about 265 children under 18 picked up a firearm and shot someone by accident, and 83 of those shootings were fatal, according to research compiled by the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. Some 41 of those deaths involved the shooters themselves, and most of the shootings involved toddlers or teens who were playing recklessly with the guns.
http://www.ibtimes.com/accidental-gun-deaths-involving-children-are-major-problem-us-2250568

Compared to:

Unintentional fall deaths
Number of deaths: 30,208

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,804


Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 38,851

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

[Duckhunter935]

155. Please don't let facts

Get in the way of their narrative.

[LiberalArkie]

19. Does that mean that the gun will be able to improve the intelligence of the gun owner?

Or will the gun just remain the smarter of the 2?

[whatthehey]

25. It's a fine idea; just not an imminent one

But yep that would solve a lot of kid shootings if we could ever get it right. I'm sure it will be possible some day.

[NickB79]

26. If the police and military adopt the tech, then I'll be in line to buy one

However, bear in mind smart-guns have been "just around the corner" technology since the 1990's and we still have no such beast, so it's clearly a tricky nut to crack.

[hollowdweller]

28. I think it could be a selling point.

Just as long as they don't try to restrict guns already in circulation

A cop who has somebody trying to take his gun then would not feel obliged to shoot them if they broke free since they wouldn't be able to use them.

[Skittles]

36. LOL, this will have paranoid gun humpers foaming at the mouth

f***ing cowards!!!

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

41. 'Paranoid gun humpers...'

Excuse me?

Does that include individuals who have made a very personal decision about defending themselves, their family, and if necessary, a total stranger?

[Skittles]

44. if they are against all forms of gun control

YES

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

48. 'Against all forms of gun control'

Please be specific.

I doubt there are any firearms enthusiasts who would have a problem with the basic 'gun control' structure we have today on the federal level - restrictions on full auto, dealer licensing, background checks at point of sale. This has been in place since FGCA 1968 and the Brady Bill of 1994.

The main concern these days is to level the playing field state by state - to spread the RKBA to residents of urban areas, and to prevent a useless 'Assault Weapons Ban.'

I don't know why people have to use such terms as 'Gun Humper.'

Who are you referring to as a 'coward' and why?

[Skittles]

55. LOL, please

if you need to openly display a weapon at a fast food restaurant, YOU'RE A GUN HUMPER

done here; I DETEST WASTING MY TIME with people who claim they just don't know WHY someone would be called a GUN HUMPER

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

57. There are places in the great nation...

in which open carry is perfectly acceptable and done all the time.

[Duckhunter935]

78. And just who is that?

It is nobody on DU.

[Travis_0004]

58. Issue them to every FBI agent, and police officer, they can test them for 5 years

Anybody want to make a bet how many departments will voluntary sign up to beta test this technology?

[scscholar]

88. A sensor that prevents them from firing...

if pointed at flesh would be nice.

[Duckhunter935]

93. Would that work if you wear a shirt or coat?

[Sunlei]

122. Set it to auto shoot the nearest heat source. Be sure police get a program to lock & track all guns.

[sarisataka]

123. I don't understand

Set it to auto shoot the nearest heat source

Do you mean have the gun shoot the operator?

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

191. No....

...at the nearest hot water heater.

[mark67]

143. I'm jumping in this late...

...and maybe I'm too old school but aren't there easier and more common sense ways to make society safer against gun violence? How about mandatory registration (no loop holes), training, and actually holding people legally accountable for all of the "accidents" involving guns.

I've been to about 30 countries and with the exception of war zones the whole gun bit is out of control. What kind of society are we actually trying to create? What is the end game?

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

152. I am wondering...

The handguns that have been used by children to shoot their parents in tragic accidents, were they the models without 'safeties?'

Semi autos used to have safeties, but now they are considered bogeymen. No safety = faster armed response.

Some still do, (such as the 1911 and M9 types) but people who conceal carry seem to have been preferring the Glock and other type models without mechanical safeties.

Holding a handgun is most likely a natural thing to do for a child. We have toys, BB guns and movies to teach them how to do it.

Pulling the trigger is a natural second step.

Flicking off a safety may not be.

Racking the slide to chamber a round certainly is not.

Glock (no safety) + very light trigger pull + round in the chamber = ??????

[mark67]

160. I posted this in another thread...

I have a friend I grew up with...nice guy...not malicious...who has a CCW...uses a concealed hip holster (small of back)...weapon has no mechanical safety (I can't remember the model). He carries with a round chambered at all times...also how he stores at home with children in the house.

There's seems to be nothing in the world I can tell him that the 1/5 of a second required to chamber a round won't affect his ability to survive and if it does it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. (with 10-15 min/day of drilling)

Others on this board responded that he's just a fool...a mental case. But he's not...he's a nice guy...I really don't understand it.

[sarisataka]

162. There is a recent

Discussion in RKBA about this exact topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172190910

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

170. I have trained on the Glock

and I would not carry 'one in the pipe.'

You can rack the slide as you draw.

[JoFerret]

192. I like the way Obama has drawn a line in the sand

...on guns. It's clear he will support no candidate who equivocates on sensible gun controls.