Glock Talk banner

Smart Gun Technology Good or Bad Idea?

3K views 80 replies 34 participants last post by  OttoLoader 
#1 ·
#47 ·
If private industry wants to develop and market it without taking any public funds, and there is no government mandate for people to use it then I'm fine with it. I wouldn't get one though.
 
#52 ·
The only smart around the guns should be the human. Honestly I don't like any things that were designated as "smart", because people tend to act stupid around them.
 
#53 ·
Well I think some people would benefit from such a safe weapon, and I think if they ever get them to really be dependable they would be ok for cops. I'm not against them I just don't want one forced upon me.
 
#54 ·
I'm not arguing your liberal, anti-gun talking points. And you truly sound like one btw.

You can take away every accidental shooting, you can eliminate every single 30 year old, BS statistic the Anti-Gun Nazi's cry crocodile tears over today. You can eliminate every suicide by gun (and the suicide rates will still not go down by the way. If someone wants to kill themselves they're going to do it whether they have a gun or not), and the anti-2nd Amendment Nazi's will STILL never stop trying to take everyone's guns away.

They will never stop until the 2nd Amendment and our Right is eliminated. Seriously, stop sucking the liberal, anti-gun SACK.

Mandating this kind of tech on every gun, would effectively eliminate the 2nd Amendment. They've known this since it was first prototyped. It would give the Government a kill switch for each and every gun in America. Which is why they're PROMOTING it. Why don't you get it? Or hell you may actually be one of them for all we know. I don't know why I'm even interacting with you at all.

You know, here's a better idea. Except for Gang shootings, 95% of the mass shootings in the last 30+ years, have been committed by Liberals, Registered (D)'s, Islamist Terrorists and/or crazy people. We could eliminate nearly every mass shooting in this country (except for the Islamist Terrorist kind and even most of those are committed by disillusioned, America hating leftists), if Congress passed a law banning all Liberals and Registered Democrats from owning or possessing firearms. Now THAT is something that would make a real difference!
:chatter:

I don't seem to recall ever saying I was for mandating anything - in fact I am saying the opposite of that - :deadhorse:
 
#55 ·
Among the many lies perpetrated by the anti gun Nazis and liberal bedwetters upon those who are not well informed is the huge lie about gun deaths in the US. Probably around 36,000/yr. Sounds horrible, doesn't it? What they conveniently fail to point out and Gabby Gifford's dumb organization is guilty of it is that 2/3rds of those deaths are suicides. And as one recent poster said, a person determined to off themselves will find a way even if guns weren't around. Guns are just quicker and easily used.

Throw out gangbanger turf war killings and I consider those fatalities civic improvement, the numbers would be much lower. Also, the Clinton administration tampered with the numbers increasing the age at which people killed by guns could be categorized as "children" to 18 so more gang shootings could be added to make the statistics seem worse than reality.

No one on this forum should ever believe that the anti gun crowd will ever tell the truth about anything if if interferes with their goal of gun bans. Don
 
#58 ·
Im sorry. I wasnt aware that if a light fails...as you just admitted happens the gun is rendered useless.

I bow to your superior logic. Who cares is the battery required to make the gun run fails or if the tech in proximity guns can be jammed to render the gun useless by a bad guy with parts from radio shack or a device purchased online?

The tech you are referring to DOES NOT make the gun safer. It makes them less safe.

Any money spent towards it is a waste and it endangers the populace should it ever be implemented.

Companies can spend their money on what they like...including not so smart guns. But its dumb as hell.
 
#59 ·
I dont think gun owners look "dumb as hell" when they have explained it as i and others have.

I am on several debate sites with hundreds of liberals.Some gun hating. Smart guns have been subject of discussion many times. Including calling people against smart guns morons.

Guess what? They shut their mouths once they become educated on the reliability issues that cannot be overcome.
 
#60 ·
Taking the position

We don't want new technology that may make a product safer. Is dumb as hell.

When gun owners take that position it makes them look dumb as hell.

I don't want taxpayer money spent to make cars better or computers better or shoes better or cell phones better -

If someone wants a better product, or wants a new technology let the companies that produce that item understand what people want and spend their own money on it.

Wasting taxpayer money on product development is dumb as hell.

I bet you don't use a light on any of your guns do you?

They fail so often that they are just not worth even having - the switches fail, the batteries go dead, the bulbs burn out. Oh wait - they don't - that would be dumb as hell.

Millions of people use lights on their guns - helps them to ID their target and reduce the risk of shooting someone by accident. I am surprised the folks in New Jersey have not made lights on guns mandatory.
You use nothing but straw man arguments, just like Obama, and every other liberal out there with a weak argument.

The only people this kind of tech makes the product safer for, are the criminals. If you think you need this kind of thing on your gun, you probably shouldn't own or possess a gun at all.

And this kind of tech doesn't relate to making cars, or computers, or cell phones or anything "better". Because it ISN'T making the gun "better" in any way. Oh, other than the bad guys, it's much better for them if they can disable your gun before they ever even step foot in your house.

Weapon lights are nothing the same as an electronic safety that renders the gun unusable if it fails or if it's hacked. I'm pretty sure I can still SHOOT my gun if the light fails. Or hey, here's a thought I can pick up a flashlight. Yeah I know, you think that's just tin-foil hat stuff, huh?

Oh, and you never addressed the FACT that each and every one of these "smart" safeties, will have an electronic kill switch, usable by fedreal, state and local law enforcement, or anyone else with the right equipment, to completely disable the gun via an electronic signal. So the technology is already built into the gun, ripe and ready to be hacked.

I'm done with your liberal gas. You feel free to be the first to sign up for the "smart" gun.

I'll say once and for all, anyone that supports this tech are, in YOUR words, DUMB AS HELL.
 
#61 ·
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree - :brickwall:

But taking a position that technology must be stopped has never been a winner - well unless you are Amish - but then you wouldn't have a computer so you wouldn't be posting on GT. :bunny:

I have been on GT a long time - and when someone calls me a liberal it always makes me LOL - :rofl:

Maybe some day - after you have been around a little longer and grow up some you will understand that when a GTer starts posting baseless insults it is because they don't have anything that supports their position. So instead of just being a man about it and admitting maybe there are other possible positions that are valid, they throw a little fit and do the name calling thing. It never really changes anything. The I'm done with ___________ is also a classic - can't hold up your end of a discussion so claim you are done!! I have lost count how many times this sort of stuff has been posted.

I guess when I was a newbie I probably did the same thing - if you are still on GT in say 5 years and get a few thousand posts under your belt you will understand this. :fred:

Have a nice day.
 
#62 ·
I'm all for smart guns as long as the bad guys have them, and I have my old dumb guns!

I managed a fleet maintenance facility for a number of years. At one point the powers that be decided that time clocks were a thing of the past and that thumb print scanners were the way of the future.

Every morning my first task was to manually enter the start times of several of the techs that could not get the scanner to recognize there print.
The company finally had to revert back to time clocks.

Technology is great, but it is not always 100% reliable and I require my SD weapon to be reliable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: janice6
#69 ·
What if it was 99.99%

How reliable is your CC gun?

Has that brand of gun ever had a failure?

I get reliability thing - but we all make a decision about how we use guns - and what trade off we want between safety and security.

Some will only use a revolver - or pump action shotgun because they don't trust a semi auto. I think that is silly - I use several semi auto handguns and a couple semi auto shotguns as SD weapons - are they 100%? No way - everything can fail.

I can see this technology being useful in many applications - plus there is no way anyone can stop people from wanting to invent stuff -

Look ahead 100 years - maybe a Glock that shoots a 124 grain slug will be as outdated as a muzzle loading pistol - maybe you iPhone will provide a shield that prevents you from being shot with a 2016 technology bullet - and will melt any firearm that doesn't have digital protection.

Sounds crazy -sure - but anyone that thinks gun technology will stay as is for the next 100 years is crazier.
 
#63 ·
I get all that - nothing about new technology - or not - changes that -

So then you think the official position of gun owners should be - we don't want any new technology? :eek:kie:

If someone thinks they can come up with something that reduces the number of accidental shootings we don't even want it to be developed or tested or made available to the gun owners that want it.

Sounds dumb as hell doesn't it?

Yes it does because it is.
No it does not.

The problem with the new technology isn't the technology, itself. If it was voluntary, that would be fine, but it is so certain to be made mandatory, as soon as they can get away with it, that some states, like New Jersey, have already made it "pre-mandatory," just in case the technology ever becomes commercially available.

That is the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: janice6
#64 ·
Why aren't manual safeties mandatory then? Or magazine disconnects?

I don't view New Jersey as a normal gun law state, using NJ as a model for the rest of the country is not valid.

Your "certain to be mandatory" view is your opinion -

I don't see it the same way. But I don't live in a state that elects a majority of people who hate guns.

I have already said it should be up to the gun companies to develop it if they see a market for it - and it should also be voluntary - I also stated I don't want it on my guns / but if someone else has a different situation like a bunch of young kids in the home - or maybe a teenager with some mental issues - it could be something useful.

But step back - whether you want it to happen or not - whether federal tax dollars are used or not - some people will be working on this technology.

I think everyone can at least agree on that.

So what you going to do - try and force legislation that prohibits this technology from being developed?

You think the NRA should have an official position that says - we don't want this technology to be developed?

What actions should - in your view - be undertaken to prevent the development of this technology?
 
#67 ·
For me, I like technology, but electronics are toys and convenience items, not something I would depend on for self defense. Things like weapons mounted lights and lasers are simply enhancements that can be used if possible, but the gun doesn't depend on them to function.

Biometrics have been used on handgun safes for several years now and while I am sure some are better than others, many still have a high failure rate when you look at the customer reviews. And this is a much more forgiving environment than something on a gun and having to be durable enough to tolerate the recoil over many rounds.

A quick search on Amazon I found reviews of a very popular one. Over 40% were 1 to 3 stars only! Yet many people find that acceptable to store their HD weapon? I think that 1/2 the work is already done to get the next generation to accept smart guns as a viable choice if they are happy with that level of reliability. After all, they have had a smart phone in their hand 24/7 since they were kids and they don't (most) have an appreciation for the simplicity and reliability of mechanical functioning items.

I believe the mindset of the anti-gun establishment will do anything they can to use this technology to their advantage. They could care less about anyone's rights or choices when it comes to guns and that was the intent of the NJ law.

I feel the same as the NRA in that the free market should decide if they want to buy it or not. There is a lot of people that want the government to decide once the technology is available and that is the fear of most pro-gun people.
 
#71 ·
If I add a barrel and a couple rounds of .22lr to my I Phone is it a "Smart Gun"?

I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate here for a bit, so bear with me before you pile on, and when you pile on, be careful. I'm an old feller now...

It is going to happen.

Somewhere.

Sometime.

Soon. (100-200 years)

Flaws and all, they too must be worked out and overcome to mfg satisfaction and/or, he who is calling the shots... so...

Call The Shot!

Set The Specs! (get there first!)

Build In An Over-Ride, both mech and electronic/digital! (Security system tailored to each user)

IF, (big "if" mind you) you can discuss design possibilities alone, and leave out politics... what WILL George & Jane Jetson's arsenal contain?

200 years ago we were transitioning to percussion caps from flintlocks...

(now... if I only had invented a device that could selectively slip into and/or scramble someone else's electronic cellular device... but to what benefit and why?)
 
#72 ·
Z71...,no one is against tech itself.

This type of tech will never be reliable. I listed the reasons and you refused to address those reasins.

There is nothing today or in the distant future that will change the way it is. It's a fact.

Maybe we will have a cell phone ap that stops bullets, light sabers, and phasers. But developing smart gun tech isn't going to do anything good anytime soon.

Fact.
 
#73 ·
If they can change the constitution allowing all guns to be made inoperable - then they can also confiscate them -
Exactly the point - with the old dumb guns, you have to confiscates them, which means they can be used to stop the confiscation or they can be hidden for later.

With smart guns, you turn on the jammer and they are no good - then they can be confiscated, or whatever, since they can't be used against the government. And, yes, if they don't already have it, the jammer would be project #1 - even the local police would need jammers so they can shut down guns when they answer a call. The smart gun technology would be financial small potatoes, compared to the jammer and we are already much more advanced in building the jammers than the guns, because we have whole companies already building phone/radio jammers for the military.

But...but...but...we'd still have hundreds of millions of dumb guns....

And mandatory law #1 would be gov financed "trade" - "we aren't confiscating, we are trading the people new, safer guns, 1 for 1, for their old dumb guns. It's for the children." We'd call it something like the "National Firearms Child Safety Act of 2020." Then we get the dumb guns down to a manageable number, before the real shots start being fired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: janice6
#75 ·
If the government can pass laws that force us to trade in our old guns for new "government" controlled guns then we have already lost -

They will just plain confiscate all guns - and give us nothing.

:tinfoil:
 
#74 ·
Z71...,no one is against tech itself.

This type of tech will never be reliable. I listed the reasons and you refused to address those reasins.

There is nothing today or in the distant future that will change the way it is. It's a fact.

Maybe we will have a cell phone ap that stops bullets, light sabers, and phasers. But developing smart gun tech isn't going to do anything good anytime soon.

Fact.
Define reliable -

Is a G19 considered reliable by your standard?

Saying something must function 100% - 100% of the time is not reasonable. No gun in existence can claim that high of reliability.
 
#79 · (Edited)
No I would not trust electronics to work when needed.


As a side note, has anyone seen an example of this technology in anything other than a service size+ semi-auto handgun? How are they going to fit this unreliable tech in a current production AR,AK, revolver, pump action shotgun, break open shotgun/rifle, lever action rifle, tiny mouse guns and any gun that has no room what-so-ever for additional components? Take any one of your current firearms and try to fit a 1" piece of cardboard in there and tell me if everything still functions even though the circuit boards+batteries+wiring+whatever else this needs is much bigger than that. Seems if this was passed their next step would be to only allow guns like the one below...



Enjoy your unreliable $1,800 10-shot .22lr. ETA: Went back to the link and noticed it's a HI website claiming how this tech is getting traction. Enough said.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top