What's wrong with smart guns?

[Brain357]

Please. What percent do you put on you being attacked and needing to fire there little bunny? Why is it I know so many people that are completely unarmed and they aren't scared?

I don't give a fuck moron. Real life isn't a game. Real life is one shot. Take your BS games and take a flying leap.

Real life is you are very, very unlikely to be attacked. Real life is if you are attacked just pointing a gun at the person will stop them. You live in some fantasy place where you are really scared.

Real life is you are very, very unlikely to be attacked.

I agree….until you actually are attacked……..and you have listed 1.5 million reported crimes where actual human beings have been attacked…so it does in fact happen…and each day you wake up, you have no idea if that is your day to be a victim….unless they are like you brain and can see into the future.

And you know a huge number are gang related. Are you involved in gang activity? And another huge chunk are committed by friends and family who wouldn't let you use a gun for defense anyhow. And well in a country of over 300 million it's just a fraction of a pecent anyhow. Don't be so paranoid and scared.

Paranoid and scared need emotion….I have a gun with the same emotional investment as I have with my cell phone. You guys are the paranoid ones…….you see every gun owners as a homicidal killer…and you just pointed out most gun murder is committed by career criminals…a vast majority of those gang members in democrat controlled cities.

But…….innocent people are targeted for crime all the time……better to be safe than sorry……..talk to actual victims sometime..see what they have to say.

No based on the numbers you are obviously scared and paranoid. You spend your life telling people they need a gun for defense when it is extremely unlikely anyone will. Most people are more likely to shoot themselves than need it for defense. Crime has declined for over 30 years. Relax.

 

[2aguy]

I don't give a fuck moron. Real life isn't a game. Real life is one shot. Take your BS games and take a flying leap.

Real life is you are very, very unlikely to be attacked. Real life is if you are attacked just pointing a gun at the person will stop them. You live in some fantasy place where you are really scared.

Real life is you are very, very unlikely to be attacked.

I agree….until you actually are attacked……..and you have listed 1.5 million reported crimes where actual human beings have been attacked…so it does in fact happen…and each day you wake up, you have no idea if that is your day to be a victim….unless they are like you brain and can see into the future.

And you know a huge number are gang related. Are you involved in gang activity? And another huge chunk are committed by friends and family who wouldn't let you use a gun for defense anyhow. And well in a country of over 300 million it's just a fraction of a pecent anyhow. Don't be so paranoid and scared.

Paranoid and scared need emotion….I have a gun with the same emotional investment as I have with my cell phone. You guys are the paranoid ones…….you see every gun owners as a homicidal killer…and you just pointed out most gun murder is committed by career criminals…a vast majority of those gang members in democrat controlled cities.

But…….innocent people are targeted for crime all the time……better to be safe than sorry……..talk to actual victims sometime..see what they have to say.

No based on the numbers you are obviously scared and paranoid. You spend your life telling people they need a gun for defense when it is extremely unlikely anyone will. Most people are more likely to shoot themselves than need it for defense. Crime has declined for over 30 years. Relax.

So no one is ever raped, robbed, kidnapped, tortured or murdered anywhere in the United States or the world….good to know. I am as relaxed as you can be…….I am not the one who breaks into a cold sweat when they see a gun…...

 

[Brain357]

Look at the stats, you aren't very likely to fall victim to any of those. And with rape the vast majority aren't defendable with a gun. With murder you are most likely to know the person so I doubt they will give you an opportunity to defend yourself with a gun. We are a country of over 300 million people. Only 1.5 million violent crimes each year. Many of which are gang related. You in a gang? If not you are really safe, don't be so scared.

No….1.5 million crimes that actually have a report….another 1.5 million are stopped by Americans using guns to stop them according to bill clinton, and barak obama and the government agencies they hired to do the research…..and that is on top of the 40 years of research that supports those finding…..

All crimes are underreported so the 1.5 million number you use is not accurate.

Your 1.5 number is inaccurate and ancient. Crime is down dramatically. Regardless they aren't shooting their guns or they would be reported. So again you would be fine with a smart gun.

Yes…..we now have 13 million people carrying guns for self defense so the 1.5 million number from bill clinton will be higher today.

No you need a crime. The number of guns doesn't matter when there aren't enough crimes being attempted.

Yeah….violent crime is a myth…..got you…..

It virtually is unless you are involved in criminal activity. Look at the numbers. Use a little common sense and avoid criminal activity and you will be fine. No need to be so scared.

 

[2aguy]

No….1.5 million crimes that actually have a report….another 1.5 million are stopped by Americans using guns to stop them according to bill clinton, and barak obama and the government agencies they hired to do the research…..and that is on top of the 40 years of research that supports those finding…..

All crimes are underreported so the 1.5 million number you use is not accurate.

Your 1.5 number is inaccurate and ancient. Crime is down dramatically. Regardless they aren't shooting their guns or they would be reported. So again you would be fine with a smart gun.

Yes…..we now have 13 million people carrying guns for self defense so the 1.5 million number from bill clinton will be higher today.

No you need a crime. The number of guns doesn't matter when there aren't enough crimes being attempted.

Yeah….violent crime is a myth…..got you…..

It virtually is unless you are involved in criminal activity. Look at the numbers. Use a little common sense and avoid criminal activity and you will be fine. No need to be so scared.

Fear is an emotion….a Vulcan like myself has no need of emotion…that is a human need...

 

[Brain357]

Real life is you are very, very unlikely to be attacked. Real life is if you are attacked just pointing a gun at the person will stop them. You live in some fantasy place where you are really scared.

Real life is you are very, very unlikely to be attacked.

I agree….until you actually are attacked……..and you have listed 1.5 million reported crimes where actual human beings have been attacked…so it does in fact happen…and each day you wake up, you have no idea if that is your day to be a victim….unless they are like you brain and can see into the future.

And you know a huge number are gang related. Are you involved in gang activity? And another huge chunk are committed by friends and family who wouldn't let you use a gun for defense anyhow. And well in a country of over 300 million it's just a fraction of a pecent anyhow. Don't be so paranoid and scared.

Paranoid and scared need emotion….I have a gun with the same emotional investment as I have with my cell phone. You guys are the paranoid ones…….you see every gun owners as a homicidal killer…and you just pointed out most gun murder is committed by career criminals…a vast majority of those gang members in democrat controlled cities.

But…….innocent people are targeted for crime all the time……better to be safe than sorry……..talk to actual victims sometime..see what they have to say.

No based on the numbers you are obviously scared and paranoid. You spend your life telling people they need a gun for defense when it is extremely unlikely anyone will. Most people are more likely to shoot themselves than need it for defense. Crime has declined for over 30 years. Relax.

So no one is ever raped, robbed, kidnapped, tortured or murdered anywhere in the United States or the world….good to know. I am as relaxed as you can be…….I am not the one who breaks into a cold sweat when they see a gun…...

1.2 million in a country of over 300 million. I own several guns, you make no sense.

 

[Brain357]

Your 1.5 number is inaccurate and ancient. Crime is down dramatically. Regardless they aren't shooting their guns or they would be reported. So again you would be fine with a smart gun.

Yes…..we now have 13 million people carrying guns for self defense so the 1.5 million number from bill clinton will be higher today.

No you need a crime. The number of guns doesn't matter when there aren't enough crimes being attempted.

Yeah….violent crime is a myth…..got you…..

It virtually is unless you are involved in criminal activity. Look at the numbers. Use a little common sense and avoid criminal activity and you will be fine. No need to be so scared.

Fear is an emotion….a Vulcan like myself has no need of emotion…that is a human need...

Good one!

It doesn't hurt your gun cause to admit we are really safe and to relax bro! More guns and still safe supports it.

 

[chikenwing]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

1. dead battery,now it just a hammer
2. cost,prices many out of the ability to own one
3. refer back too #2 repairs would be costly and hard to find.
4.the musket thing is a hoot and of little reliance,using said logic,we should be useing horses instead of cars

 

[Pogo]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

The second amendment doesn't mention muskets.

But it mentions "arms", and the musket was about the best you could do at the time, therefore that's what "arms" meant. One or two new refinements have been invented since then vastly affecting both accuracy and impact (see also post 23) which means what the Founders were describing and what exists today are vastly different technologies capable of vastly different things.

It is impossible, then or now, to write laws or constitutions for technology that does not at the time of writing exist.

One might add, "duh".

Oh sorry, you were saying something about "stupid"? Do go on.

Using your logic the 1st does NOT apply to computers phones, fax machines or any of a slew of electronic
devices invented since 1789.

Of course it does ---
"speech" is an activity. "Arms" is a thing.

"Speech" is conceptual expression, irrespective of how it's transmitted.
"Arms" is an object, irrespective of how it's used.

 

[Pogo]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

Wrong read the Constitution again strategic weapons belong to the Government thus why NO STATE could have a Navy since in that day and age only the navy was strategic.

And where does the COTUS mention "strategic arms"?

 

[Pogo]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

When you can bear under the definition a fighter jet or a nuclear missile, we will consider your interesting viewpoint.

In the Heller case, the SCOTUS noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons”.

There is a "tradition", sure.
But on the other hand there's also the wording of the Constitution.

 

[blastoff]

Smart guns?

How in the hell will the ignorant criminal thug killers in the hood ever figure out how to use one?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

Why would you want a finger print reader on a parachute? Fingerprint readers are regularly used at the pentagon and nuclear facilities. Haven't heard about any problems using them there.

Opening a door is not a life or death situation

 

[Pogo]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

and you couldn't use your iPhone, pads or computers...they are obviously not covered by the first amendment....do you guys always have to use tired, stupid arguments?

Non sequitur. 1A makes no delineation whatsoever on what technology may be used. Neither does 2A.

That's the whole point here. That's why I should be able to "bear" a nuclear weapon if I so choose. So ya better watch out, ya better not cry.

The corollary to that of course is that, if We the People decide that no I cannot bear a nuclear weapon, then We the People can also decide that I cannot bear a non-'smart gun'.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

Why would you want a finger print reader on a parachute? Fingerprint readers are regularly used at the pentagon and nuclear facilities. Haven't heard about any problems using them there.

You wouldn't, even If there was a pressing need for it.

It's an analogy of a life or death situation where a mechanical device must work immediately.

If you wouldn't trust your life to this technology on a parachute...that answers the question "what's wrong with smart guns" quite succinctly.

Well if it doesn't work you can always take the batteries out and put them back in again and hope you don't get shot by a guy with n old fashioned not so smart gun

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Plus if you jump out of a plane there is a 100% chance you need to use a parachute. On any given day there is about a 0% chance you will need to fire your gun.

You never need to fire a gun until you do and when that time comes to you want a dead battery on your fingerprint scanner to be the reason you wound up dead?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.

Your musket argument fails unless of course we apply that "logic" to speech and every other right as well

How would you like the only protected written speech to have to be written with quill and ink after all pens, typewriters computers etc were not around when the first amendment was written

 

[Brain357]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Plus if you jump out of a plane there is a 100% chance you need to use a parachute. On any given day there is about a 0% chance you will need to fire your gun.

You never need to fire a gun until you do and when that time comes to you want a dead battery on your fingerprint scanner to be the reason you wound up dead?

I am fine with that. There is basically zero chance you will need to fire a gun. And it is easy to keep the batteries charged. You probably don't forget to load your gun do you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

... I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't musket....

All I needed to read.
Than you for playing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Plus if you jump out of a plane there is a 100% chance you need to use a parachute. On any given day there is about a 0% chance you will need to fire your gun.

You never need to fire a gun until you do and when that time comes to you want a dead battery on your fingerprint scanner to be the reason you wound up dead?

I am fine with that. There is basically zero chance you will need to fire a gun. And it is easy to keep the batteries charged. You probably don't forget to load your gun do you?

I don't care of you're fine with it

I'm not and I'm not going to bet my life if it comes to it on a piece of technology that can fail

I have a fingerprint scanner on my computer and routinely have to swipe my finger 2 or 3 times for it to work

There's no way that's acceptable on a firearm

 

[Pogo]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Plus if you jump out of a plane there is a 100% chance you need to use a parachute. On any given day there is about a 0% chance you will need to fire your gun.

You never need to fire a gun until you do and when that time comes to you want a dead battery on your fingerprint scanner to be the reason you wound up dead?

If only there were some kind of thing like a low battery indicator. Why can't some genius invent that.

Oh wait....

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Plus if you jump out of a plane there is a 100% chance you need to use a parachute. On any given day there is about a 0% chance you will need to fire your gun.

You never need to fire a gun until you do and when that time comes to you want a dead battery on your fingerprint scanner to be the reason you wound up dead?

I am fine with that. There is basically zero chance you will need to fire a gun. And it is easy to keep the batteries charged. You probably don't forget to load your gun do you?

I don't care of you're fine with it

I'm not and I'm not going to bet my life if it comes to it on a piece of technology that can fail

I have a fingerprint scanner on my computer and routinely have to swipe my finger 2 or 3 times for it to work

There's no way that's acceptable on a firearm

Conventional guns can't fail huh? Informative.

But not as informative as watching all the Firearm Fetishists carefully dance around the point, opting to focus on the comic-book cops-and-robbers fantasy way unlikely to ever happen, and totally ignoring the five-year-old who picks up a gun in curiosity and shoots his toddler sister's face off.