Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhy Is the NRA Scared of Smart Guns?
The red light on the back of the gun immediately turns green: ready to fire. When he transfers the .22-caliber pistol to his left hand—away from the watch, which communicates with electronic chips inside the gun—the light turns red.
“I can pull the trigger in red mode, but it won’t connect with the firing pin,” he explains, adding that the ip1 fires only when the watch is within 10 inches of the weapon. “It’s a lock inside the gun.”
Switching the gun back to his right hand, Giebel fires a round into an impact pad with a sharp crack. Though he looks nothing like James Bond, the weapon looks like something dreamed up for him by Q, the fictional R&D division head of Bond’s secret service. It’s called the iP1, and it recently became the first smart gun introduced in the U.S.
http://www.vocativ.com/usa/guns/nra-scared-smart-guns/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)“Unfortunately officers getting killed with their own weapons, it’s not something that happens every day, but it does happen, it’s too frequent,” Johnson said.
Bulletproof vests, he explains, have to be rated to stop different kinds of shots, but the armor must without exception be able to stop the kind of bullets that the officer is carrying.
But to date, smart guns aren’t common or accessible enough to judge whether they’ll be effective or safe enough for use by police forces, said James Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police’s Washington advocacy center. Commercial viability isn’t enough, he said -- until the products are thoroughly tested and certified, putting them into use in law enforcement will have to wait.
clffrdjk
(905 posts)And the NRA doesn't like the tech being required on new guns because it is unproven.
But the NRA (or rather any gun rights supporter) is the bad guy for not supporting this.
So why should this tech be forced on me when even the cops are turning it down?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)That is the definition of "commonly available".
How about the federal government? Why doesn't the DoJ simply buy smart guns for the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the USSS, etc?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)if you have to shoot with your weak hand.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)None of the resident gun humpers are members or support the NRA..
Why is Secular Motion afraid of constructive conversation about guns and safety? I'd ask where you lurk, but like many others I am banned on a whim or out of fear... go spout your hate and your bigotry in your own lil corner of the web, you'll be cheered for doing "Gods Work"..
spin
(17,493 posts)I support the parent organization as it does a lot of good for the shooting sports and also provides qualified instructors who teach gun safety to hunters, gun owners and to those who legally carry. The NRA also publishes books and magazines on firearms, reloading ammunition and the history of firearms which I find interesting and informative.
However the political wing of the NRA, the NRA-ILA which depends on contributions publishes a lot of fear mongering propaganda that is often as false as the propaganda pushed by those groups who support strong or draconian gun control. Consequently I merely throw all mail from the NRA-ILA into my trashcan unopened. (After many years I rarely get such mail.)
I understand that only a small portion of my yearly NRA dues goes to political activities and I chose not to donate to such activities.
I that I often disagree with the NRA on gun control issues and wish it would use its knowledge of firearms to help form new firearm legislation that would help further reduce gun violence in our nation. At the same time I wish that the most powerful gun control groups would stop pushing for legislation such as another assault weapons ban as it would do little to reduce gun violence as long arms are rarely used in crime and mass murders have been committed without using "black rifles" or high capacity magazines.
It seems obvious to me that most gun control groups actually hope to reduce gun ownership to the level in nations like Great Britain. Realizing that it is impossible to ban handguns which are the most common firearm used, they instead use an incremental approach and first try to ban semiautomatic rifles and magazines that hold over ten rounds. Of course that would be followed up with a ban and possible confiscation of all semiautomatic firearms, handguns and pistols. Perhaps that explains why the NRA opposes any and all changes to our national and state gun control laws. It's called the "camels nose under the side of a tent theory." If allowed, the camel will eventually enter the tent.
The NRA also fears that supporting any changes to gun control laws will only lead many members to leave and join the organization known a the Gun Owners of America (GOA). The GOA is absolutely a no compromise gun rights organization. Any gun control advocate who fears the NRA, will be terrified of the GOA if and when it ever becomes the premiere gun rights organization.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Until some big city does, it's all a big experiment at the risk of other peoples lives.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Same as 'sensible' and 'reasonable'.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)Or are you just here to toss insults?
spin
(17,493 posts)I am willing to admit that in certain cases it might prove beneficial. For example a bad guy is in a fight with a cop and knows how the security devices on the cop's holster works. He is able to grab the cop's handgun from its holster and use it against him. If the cop's gun has the safety feature proposed this can't happen.
Now lets consider a civilian's use of a firearm for self defense. If it were possible to develop a totally reliable technology that would guarantee that only the owner of the firearm could use it for a reasonable price, some people might actually buy it. If it required a battery or that the owner wear an ugly digital watch the sales would suffer.
Requiring such technology in new firearms would do little good to reduce gun violence as there are currently well over 300,000,000 firearms in our nation without such a safety system. Unlike cars, refrigerators and TVs, firearms do not fail to function over the years. They simply do not wear out or fail to work as long as they are properly stored. Even a poorly maintained firearm that suffers from surface rust and even barrel corrosion can still be lethal at the short range required for self defense.
Passing your "reasonable law" for safety systems on firearms will merely prove to just be a "feel good" law. Any attempt to do so at a national level will likely fail and will only hurt the reelection chances of those who support it which will most likely be Democrats. If passed at the state level it might also cause the Republicans to gain seats in the state legislature when they promise to repeal the law. Gun manufacturers will see little profit in incorporating such safety systems and will simply refuse to sell new firearms that comply in any state that passes such requirements. I predict that eventually such laws will be repealed or allowed to sunset as the first national assault weapons ban did.
The idea might work if there were only a few million firearms in our society but there probably are more guns than people in our nation. All that passing your law will accomplish is that the price of used firearms will increase. Unfortunately this might price them so high that the poor who live in dangerous neighborhoods will no longer be able to buy them for protection.
Of course you might suggest that all that needs to be done is to ban and confiscate all firearms without this technology. Since the gun control advocates were unable to pass another assault weapons ban after the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, how much chance does banning and confiscating over 300,000,000 firearms realistically have? First you would probably have to register all firearms. Your chances of getting that to happen are roughly the same as winning your state's lotto in the next few weeks if you don't bother to buy a ticket.
I feel that eventually we can make some significant headway in addressing the problem of gun violence in our nation. It may take many years, but first it is most important that the gun control advocates stop trying to incrementally ban firearms and to create gun laws such as exist in Great Britain.
Eventually it might be possible that smart gun technology might prove to be inexpensive and reliable.
I foresee a time when solar and wind energy will help provide much of the electrical power our nation uses. If I move, I am going to try my best to become less reliant on our current power companies and live off the grid as much as I can. Twenty, thirty or fifty years from now that may happen for most people but realistically people will still be largely dependent on fossil fuels ten years from now and possibly far longer.
I fear our nation will make little headway in addressing gun violence until gun control advocates stop overreaching and trying to ban, confiscate or make firearms so expensive that only the rich or privileged can own them. It appears to me to be a noble but futile effort much like Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)each time the Armatix system is posted.
The big flaw, as pointed out by the article, is this: the ip1 fires only when the watch is within 10 inches of the weapon.
The concept of "smart" guns is a good one. Unfortunately, the needed technology has not yet gotten there.
Straw Man
(6,624 posts)There's the rub. It's bad for the same reason that self-defense classes teach people to shoot with either hand.
BTW, the engineers might want to consider the fact that standard practice in firearms design is for red to indicate "ready to fire" and green to indicate "safe." Just something to consider.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Controllers & engineers in favor of these projects should know something about what they're doing?
Silly rabbit you.
Good intentions are GOOD ENOUGH!
If it's needed:
ileus
(15,396 posts)Look at today's AED's anyone can yank one off the wall, slap a few pad on a patient and turn it on. Analyzing.....do not touch patient...analyzing....shock advised....press the red shock button.
Now look at your typical defib out on the floor of your CCU, more buttons than you can shake a stick at. Nurses do their shift checks but don't really know 1/99 of it's functions.
No one want's to wear a wonder woman band, or hope their fingers aren't sweaty.
No one want's to chip their wife and kids so they can also share in the fun of a day at the range.
Smart guns may be fine for clay competition shotguns or little kids range guns but for self defense and family fun they're not really practical and instead really dangerous to life safety.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)No; fixed that for you. 
Just an example of some headline fail.
