What's wrong with smart guns?

[HappyJoy]

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 was going to reply to this earlier, but my fucking phone wouldn't read my finger print and unlock...

Buy a better phone or wait a week. Our technology is advancing very fast, and the rate of advancement is getting faster. Your phone probably uses technology from a couple of years ago.

He probably got his finger stuck in the dial.

 

[BULLDOG]

smart guns could be manipulated remotely

Only if it is designed to be remotely manipulated.

Even things that AREN'T supposed to be remotely manipulated are being hacked. Read the tech blogs.

I read tech materials on a daily basis. Making an effort to prevent hacking is 90% of the problem.

Me too. Just imagine a world where only smart guns exist for the regular folks and law enforcement. Then a bad guy figures out how to disable them. I sure wouldn't want to be a cop in that world. Would you?

Guns don't enjoy a 0.00005% failure rate. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I know it's much higher than that. You're just trying to find a way to deny reasonable efforts. Just admit you are a gun nut who doesn't care about anything but your penis extension, and save us both a bunch of time. You've already shown you don't care to try to prove any of your claims.

 

[Brain357]

BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?

Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?

The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.

The best pistol out there claims 90%. Now. Take 10 cookies, add cyanide to one of them. Put them in a bowl. Choose one and eat it.

And since the likelyhood of ever needing to fire in defense is quite astronomical what is the problem?

Your assumption is false. I have actually been in a shoot out. And have also had to draw my weapon without firing when I was in a hotel in New Mexico. You're simply wrong.

So then there are lots of shootouts in defense? That is quite contradictory to all the claims made by the other pro gunners. You sure you want to make that claim?

Wasn't your shootout in some foreign country?

 

[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.

 

[Brain357]

Sounds like smart guns are way more reliable than the crazy claims being made:

Robert Spitzer, a SUNY Cortland political science professor and author of The Politics of Gun Control (whom Hayes brought in after Pratt to talk about the issue), said in order for the Armatix iP1 gun to be sold in California, it had to pass a reliability test.

"The standard was a 99 percent successful fire rate, which it met (fire 600 times with 6 or fewer failed discharges)," Spitzer said.

Others stressed that all guns are prone to failure at some point. The mechanical failure rate is often given as 1 in 1,000, and a military weapon’s failure rate is closer to 1 in 10,000, Sebastian said.

"Misfire is embedded in our language," he said.

Gun advocate Larry Pratt says 'smart guns' fail 20 percent of the time

 

[whitehall]

Maybe the $10,000 price tag and questionable reliability? A lot of people die in drug and alcohol related car crashes. What about a "smart car" that wouldn't run if it detected drugs or alcohol or all persons required to wear a helmet in a car? Think anyone would go for it?

 

[Brain357]

Maybe the $10,000 price tag and questionable reliability? A lot of people die in drug and alcohol related car crashes. What about a "smart car" that wouldn't run if it detected drugs or alcohol or all persons required to wear a helmet in a car? Think anyone would go for it?

Many companies are working on cars that drive themselves. I would go for it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Hackable guns; great idea Einstein.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Hackable guns; great idea Einstein.

As opposed to the anyone who picks it up gets to use it variety?

 

[JimBowie1958]

As opposed to the anyone who picks it up gets to use it variety?

You mean like any other tool?

Yeah, why not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

It DOES NOT WORK. The tech is not available that reliably works yet. You would literally be playing Russian roulette with current tech it fails more then works.

 

[HappyJoy]

As opposed to the anyone who picks it up gets to use it variety?

You mean like any other tool?

Yeah, why not?

Interesting. How many children have accidentally hammered themselves to death?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?

The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.

The best pistol out there claims 90%. Now. Take 10 cookies, add cyanide to one of them. Put them in a bowl. Choose one and eat it.

I hardly believe the best technology out there is some proposed gun from more than two years ago. There have probably been 4 generations of advancement since then. I'm guessing you feel good enough to continue conversations, but still not good enough to back up your claims.That's OK. It's what I usually expect.

Find one. I follow gun technology closely. Not one of them can even approach 99% reliability. The best I have ever seen is 90% and that is a weapon that has not undergone rigorous real world testing. Armitex just recently went out odf business and theirs was the best of the bunch. However, their pistol cost 1800 dollars. And it was a .22LR. No one in their right mind would ever rely on a .22 for self defense purposes. They chose .22 because the recoil impulse from anything bigger destroyed the hardware that made their pistol smart.

Further you had to wear a watch to make the combo work. Watches need batteries. Watches fail etc. etc. etc. So, you have a weapon that only works 90% of the time. Cost four times more than a comparable non smart pistol and was useless for the purpose it was made for.

Got any other points you wish me to address?

Low power RFID chips that can run for years on a button battery and have better than 99.9% accuracy are available for $0.39 each from Digikey. I don't think the technology is a problem.

Then you carry one. Be happy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As opposed to the anyone who picks it up gets to use it variety?

You mean like any other tool?

Yeah, why not?

Interesting. How many children have accidentally hammered themselves to death?

Far more chilluns die in swimming pools, car accidents and choking on hot dogs than die from accidental gun discharge.

Shall we ban swimming pools, cars and hot dogs too?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?

The chance of that happening is about nil. First nobody will probably ever break in. Second according to the pro gunners you won't have to actually fire the gun. Third it is extremely unlikely to malfunction.

The best pistol out there claims 90%. Now. Take 10 cookies, add cyanide to one of them. Put them in a bowl. Choose one and eat it.

I hardly believe the best technology out there is some proposed gun from more than two years ago. There have probably been 4 generations of advancement since then. I'm guessing you feel good enough to continue conversations, but still not good enough to back up your claims.That's OK. It's what I usually expect.

Find one. I follow gun technology closely. Not one of them can even approach 99% reliability. The best I have ever seen is 90% and that is a weapon that has not undergone rigorous real world testing. Armitex just recently went out odf business and theirs was the best of the bunch. However, their pistol cost 1800 dollars. And it was a .22LR. No one in their right mind would ever rely on a .22 for self defense purposes. They chose .22 because the recoil impulse from anything bigger destroyed the hardware that made their pistol smart.

Further you had to wear a watch to make the combo work. Watches need batteries. Watches fail etc. etc. etc. So, you have a weapon that only works 90% of the time. Cost four times more than a comparable non smart pistol and was useless for the purpose it was made for.

Got any other points you wish me to address?

Low power RFID chips that can run for years on a button battery and have better than 99.9% accuracy are available for $0.39 each from Digikey. I don't think the technology is a problem.

And YET a State that was going to mandate a smart firearm law shelved the idea when it was proven it DOES NOT WORK.

 

[HappyJoy]

As opposed to the anyone who picks it up gets to use it variety?

You mean like any other tool?

Yeah, why not?

Interesting. How many children have accidentally hammered themselves to death?

Far more chilluns die in swimming pools, car accidents and choking on hot dogs than die from accidental gun discharge.

Shall we ban swimming pools, cars and hot dogs too?

Whoa, whoa, whoa gun grabber, who said anything about banning?

swimming pools, cars and hot dogs...what do these three have in common? Oh, yes. regulation.

Now, other than that, just out of curiosity, where are your stats? You might want to include hammers since that was the specific tool we were talking about.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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”.

 

[westwall]

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”.

And yet his point stands doesn't. it funny how you yowl and whine when the government want's to invade your computer. A tad bit hypocritical don't ya think?