Gun Control & RKBA

bossy22

(3,547 posts)

14. It's not as simple as many believe

Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:28 PM

Jan 2014

you can't just electronically control a device that is almost purely mechanical by inserting one electronic piece in it and expect it to be "secure". All that is required to defeat the device would be simple removal, which is especially easy on todays weapons. The problem with this technology is it forgets that a gun has no electronic parts to it. It's all mechanical. The only way it theoretically work would be if you made a gun thats firing mechanism was mostly electronic- which would add weight and complexity to the weapon that is not needed.

One has to wonder why if this technology is so great, why aren't police departments and military looking to employ it? They are the ones who stand the most to benefit from it. Every piece of legislation I see exempts them so I have to wonder why. The most likely explanation is that the technology just simply isn't reliable be enough. If that is the case, why should civilians be forced to own weapons less reliable than the police? What happens when a gun owner gets injured because his weapon wouldn't fire? Does he get to sue?- surely there would be lawsuits on this.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is It Time To Put Chips In Guns? [View all] SecularMotion Jan 2014 OP

I prefer to put them in dips. Common Sense Party Jan 2014 #1

LOL. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #2

Post removed Post removed Jan 2014 #3

It's a fair question: Why don't you discuss your own OPs? friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #6

Well, he did. See where he called a fellow DUer a "Stalker?" Eleanors38 Jan 2014 #37

Not stalking, don't flatter yourself. Ranchemp. Jan 2014 #20

...or as someone once said... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2014 #34

Yeah. Straw Man Jan 2014 #4

No ileus Jan 2014 #5

What if I sale it? flamin lib Jan 2014 #12

RFID makes sense on three levels; flamin lib Jan 2014 #7

"It makes unauthorized use impossible..."until it's hacked friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #9

Okay, so in a confrontation with police an assailant takes the officer's flamin lib Jan 2014 #11

In that instance it would be helpful bossy22 Jan 2014 #13

It doesn't make sense on many levels bossy22 Jan 2014 #15

Just be honest, okay? flamin lib Jan 2014 #17

I would not oppose it in that case bossy22 Jan 2014 #18

Ya mean like fly by wire? Or drive by wire? flamin lib Jan 2014 #22

Again, I don't have an ideological problem with it bossy22 Jan 2014 #23

Up thread you commented that flamin lib Jan 2014 #27

You are more than free to work on it bossy22 Jan 2014 #28

"mandate it and work out the kinks later". Is it so unreasonable to be against this? flamin lib Jan 2014 #30

no its not bossy22 Jan 2014 #31

Thalidomide was not produced or prescribed in the US. flamin lib Jan 2014 #32

So a testing regime did its job? bossy22 Jan 2014 #35

Someone spent time coming up with a prototype. Eleanors38 Jan 2014 #38

Exactly bossy22 Jan 2014 #40

When the military and the police widely implement it, i'll consider it. AtheistCrusader Jan 2014 #8

One comment illustrates the mindset of the proponents: friendly_iconoclast Jan 2014 #10

So I have a concealed weapons permit and am out walking my dog with a five shot snub nosed ... spin Jan 2014 #25

It also illustrates the problem with our soundbite politics bossy22 Jan 2014 #41

It's not as simple as many believe bossy22 Jan 2014 #14

The technology is here now and functional. flamin lib Jan 2014 #16

that were true, several gun manufactures are gejohnston Jan 2014 #19

Yeah, I cited that up-thread. flamin lib Jan 2014 #24

go ahead, produce it, test it bossy22 Jan 2014 #26

It won't happen any time soon because flamin lib Jan 2014 #29

so maybe that should tell you something bossy22 Jan 2014 #33

This is getting really boring. I answer every objection yet you find flamin lib Jan 2014 #36

you didn't answer anything bossy22 Jan 2014 #39

in the laboratory bossy22 Jan 2014 #21

So what is your point of discussion here? Packerowner740 Jan 2014 #42