Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What would be wrong with "smart gun" legislation?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,546 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:08 PM

As a libertarian I don't like government restrictions on guns.

But what about legislation that would require all guns sold in the US to have smart gun technology. This technology would only allow the gun to be shot by the intended user or users via computer chip. The gun could also be remotely disabled.

Would gun proponents have a problem with this?

#2 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,462 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:14 PM

Uh yeah. First of computers fail. Secondly who is in charge of remotely disabling them, the government? I'll pass.

#3 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,546 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:19 PM

Uh yeah. First of computers fail. Secondly who is in charge of remotely disabling them, the government? I'll pass.


You would need reliable technology but that shouldn't be an issue. We have it in other devices.

No the government would not be in charge.

#4 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,462 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:25 PM

I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to control when a firearm operates. One executive order and all guns are useless.

#5 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,565 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:34 PM

Such tech would be way to finicky and open to hacking.

#6 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,559 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:35 PM

Hint: Anything other than "let CatofWar have any gun he wants whenever he wants it without restriction" will be systematically shot down.

#7 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,462 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:40 PM

Hint: delhommey is a troll.

#8 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,546 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:41 PM

Such tech would be way to finicky and open to hacking.


We have versions of this technology in other items. There is no reason you couldn't have reliable technology in guns.

My question isn't whether we can design the technology, my question is assuming we can what would be the downside to requiring it.

#9 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,359 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

I'll pass, thanks.

The key here is deeper background checks into the buyer/owners of the guns, not the guns themselves.

#10 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,565 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:51 PM

We have versions of this technology in other items. There is no reason you couldn't have reliable technology in guns.

My question isn't whether we can design the technology, my question is assuming we can what would be the downside to requiring it.



Then my second reason would be giving power to my firearms to another source.
If it's in my hand and I need to pull the trigger that should be the end of it.

IMO, it would hinder my control of the weapon.

Now if you are talking about some fancy fingerprint activation system, I might could get on board for that. I would fear, however, that it would price many out of the ability to purchase even a basic firearm.

#11 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,559 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:53 PM

If it makes it more safe for everyone, who cares about the price?

#12 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,546 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:59 PM

Now if you are talking about some fancy fingerprint activation system, I might could get on board for that. I would fear, however, that it would price many out of the ability to purchase even a basic firearm.


So if it was not price prohibitive you would be OK with it?

The issue gun rights folks have is that it could ruin the secondary market/ private gun shows.

#13 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,565 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:59 PM

If it makes it more safe for everyone, who cares about the price?


If I can't afford to buy a gun, it is not making it safer for me.

#14 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,136 posts

Posted 08 January 2013 - 03:00 PM

Anyone who thinks that they could ever produce a "smart weapon" that would prevent unauthorized use while making the weapon as reliable and available to the owner is a fool.

What if my wife needs to use it?
What if I need to use it with my off hand?
What if I'm wearing a glove?
What if my hand is bloodied or covered in mud and I need it?
How do you transfer ownership without creating a system that is secure without being prone to abuse?
How do you propose to retrofit all of the weapons in homes today?


Its bullshit SciFi to even think about it...

#15 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,565 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 08 January 2013 - 03:01 PM

So if it was not price prohibitive you would be OK with it?

The issue gun rights folks have is that it could ruin the secondary market/ private gun shows.



I can understand that argument.

As long as I could still reasonably purchase and fire on demand without delay a firearm I could be ok with it.

Just leads into reliability issues IMO.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com