What's wrong with smart guns?

Ichiro · August 27, 2005, 10:11 PM

I prefer to rely on my own common sense and training to maintain gun safety, and would rather have fewer controls/locks/safeties instead of more. This "smart gun" idea, I know, is just another attempt to make guns less usable and more expensive for people who have accepted the responsibility of gun ownership. Off the top of my head, the problems I see with "smart guns" are:

One more "feature" is one more thing that can malfunction. Malfunctions are unacceptable on guns intended for defense.
Any extra and expendable "feature" will result in the gun costing more money, with no additional usability.
My wife and I both use our guns. If the hand imprint, or whatever the smart gun uses to identify its owner can identify only me, that is a big liability. The security of my home depends on both my wife and I being able to use our guns.

I am totally opposed to the "smart gun" concept for civilian guns, but I am sure there are more good reasons for my stance than what I've listed.

If you can think of more, please share them.

~Ichiro

butch50 · August 27, 2005, 10:14 PM

I can not fathom that the technology for such a thing is 100% reliable and ready and on at all times. Sounds like something that will be very finicky.

My first fear would be that in a SD situation it wouldn't work.

My other first fear is that it is yet another chipping away of our rights to be free individuals.

USP45usp · August 27, 2005, 11:02 PM

Use computers, or anything that depends on a redundant system that always seems to fail.

Use guns, based on 100+ years of not being changed except in very small ways.

Let the cops (LEO's) and the Feds use them first, and then after a couple of years, I may turn.

If the LEO's are exempt, as well as the feds..... NO WAY!

Wayne

Guy B. Meredith · August 27, 2005, 11:25 PM

First you need to consider the purpose of the 'smart' device. Prevent theft? Prevent someone taking it from you in combat? Pickpocket? Prevent use by children? How old are the children?

Read my signature. If anyone against whom the gun is to be protected is able to take or steal and carry it off the mechnism is worthless. For short time frames or where the taker can't use tools they might work.

Ptown Beretta · August 28, 2005, 01:11 AM

Hmm, well for one, there is a huge agenda behind the smart gun. I really tink that is enough for me. I want my gun to go bang every time.

Glenn E. Meyer · August 28, 2005, 01:13 PM

The smart gun issue is complex.

Here's a list of factors:

1. Cops do get shot by their own weapons so there was motivation to stop that. I think the percentage is about 30% of shootings but I might misremember.

2. There are accidential shootings by kids or other unauthorized folk in the civilian world and that was a motivation. The number is small though.

3. Antigun folks thought that by mandating smart guns you could increase the price and reduce purchases. It would also act as a precedent for more control - thus a slippery slope attack on gun usage

4. Gun companies saw this as a good product. Why?

a. Glock had captured most of the LEO market from SW and Colt. If they could come up with a gun and get in mandated for cops, they could capture sales again.

b. Surveys showed that there was a substantial self-defense civilian market for them. Folks who have kids or worry about the gun being taken away from them were interested in a smart gun and thus this might be a good addition to the product line (that makes sense in a business way if the gun would work and one avoided the politics)

c. Given the political attack on guns, some companies saw that by introducing smart guns they could appease antigunners. Like SW did in their agreement.

5. The guns would be difficult to use -

a. It could malfunction as stated

b. The only one user issue is a red herring as modern electronics can handle more than one user quite easily. Some systems could learn and store 50 patterns. However, it is not clear that the recognition really works that well in any case. I have a friend close to one of the projects and he says that it really never works right. Kind of like the ABM missiles - do they work? Well - don't ask.

c. What about gloves, blood and goo? Not really mentioned with fingerprint systems. The radio, magnetic rings systems might not care.

d. Cops wouldn't go near them as they don't trust them and that negates the market attraction.

6. Research labs are interested as they get sucker grant money from the Feds to work on this.

To summarize - if there were such tech that really worked, a smart gun with programming for more than one person and/or set of hands is a reasonable product for some markets and uses. Prison guards for instance or the family that wants a gun that kids can't use.

However, the current state is such that such guns don't exist. Also, the political risk of them being mandated as a slippery slope attack on the RKBA is such that this small hypothetical benefit isn't worth it.

USP45usp · August 28, 2005, 01:27 PM

Besides what Glenn mentioned (+1 BTW):

*Smart guns will be computerized. Therefore, they cannot be used by LEO's or the military as an EMP will disable the guns when they will be most needed.

*Smart guns will be computerized. Therefore, civilians cannot use them during an EMP also.

*Computers have been known to fail and to be subject to viruses and "bot" programs. Hackers are prevalent and are getting better. This technology can, and will be, used by muggers/criminals to deactivate the "smartgun" and render it useless.

*Same goes (above) for LEO's and military if they are forced to use them.

*What can be "turned on" can be "turned off".

Now, lets go with the "magnetic ring".

*I don't wear jewely, not even a watch of which I collect.

*Loss of the ring. Rings are lost all the time and what "hoops" will you be forced to get a new one?

*What makes one think that these "rings" won't be available on the black market. And to expand, how many strength combinations will need to be created? I mean, if they are just magnets, how hard will it be to make the rings by the criminals?

If computerized (revisited):

*Will you have to "plug in" your gun at night to charge the battery? If so, what do you do during the night if you need your gun?

*Exactly where are you going to put all the chips and wires? There is little to no room in the interior of the gun itself (handguns). Grips? What if you crack a grip and need to replace? What if you want a nice pair of Hakan's?

The lists can go on and on.

Wayne

Russ538 · August 28, 2005, 01:31 PM

Does anyone know whether these guns can be set for multiple users?

Personally, I dislike the idea. Wayne and Glenn pretty much hit the nail right on the head. Those reasons are plenty. I'm just curious as to whether the thing could be set up for more than one person to use.

Don H · August 28, 2005, 02:06 PM

I do believe that New Jersey has exempted its law enforcement agencies from having to use the smart gun technology when (if) it's implemented.

USP45usp · August 28, 2005, 02:10 PM

Russ,

Quote:

I'm just curious as to whether the thing could be set up for more than one person to use.

With anything computerized or with the use of a simple magnet, sure.

But what makes one think that if this is created and manatory to use that the government won't start making "one gun, one person" laws?

If one starts to really use their imagination on the concept and on what laws may be made, it actually turns out to be a very scary thing indeed if this gets through.

Just the thought of the gun being able to be turned off, authorized user or not, and the having to try to wear a ring (not to mention what you do if you have to wear gloves) gives me the heebi geebies.

You know what is funny (sadly). I have a HS diploma, two years of community college, and tech school for Project Management. I don't have these high dollar degrees from universities that I couldn't even get a job at as a janitor (not enough schooling) but can think though the problems that may or will exist with trying this concept. (as have others).

Ya think they are really wanting this for the right reasons?

Wayne

Guy B. Meredith · August 28, 2005, 02:41 PM

If the smart gun is to protect LEO, then citizens don't need them.

Having 'smart' guns around children encourages sloppy safety practices. Suppose the lock malfunctions; solenoid sticks in 'on' position or some such?

If it is sitting around accessible to children it is accessible to thieves. Per my signature the 'smart' gun is ineffectual against thieves or children old enough to have had basic science classes. A gun safe is best by far.

Is that civilian market that the research shows is interested actually going to purchase or are they just saying they want firearms owners to have to deal with the 'smart' mechanism?

Waitone · August 28, 2005, 11:06 PM

Only if it uses Apple's operating system.

blackmind · August 29, 2005, 12:36 AM

Quote:

I am totally opposed to the "smart gun" concept for civilian guns, but I am sure there are more good reasons for my stance than what I've listed.

If you can think of more, please share them.

What I want to contribute is this:

If "smart guns" are intended to make people safer from having their guns used against them, then it makes the most sense for COPS to be issued them, much more than civilians.

Ironic it is that all legislation I've ever heard of, either proposed or enacted, forces this unproven and risky technology on civilians, and specifically exempts law enforcement officers.

Makes it quite clear that these efforts are concocted by antis, just to screw with ordinary gun owners.

-blackmind

Bog · August 29, 2005, 02:03 PM

Hum.

Even assuming motives as Pure as the Driven Snow on behalf of those pushing for "smartguns" (Ha! Smartguns are what Vasquez and Drake used to hose Aliens in that atmosphere processor back on LV-426...)

While it's possible to come up with a weapon which will only fire when the user is carrying the right Secret Agent Coded Ring (tm. Crackerjack Corp, 1945), that would put batteries in the gun.

Way back when I used to fly aeroplanes semi-frequently, there was a running joke that a "Flashlight" was a metal tube used to carry dead batteries in. The same would apply here. I'm sorry, but the charging cradle for my palmtop spends half it's life unplugged. I plug in my 'phone charger when the 'phone is giving me Low Battery warnings. I change the batteries in my mouse when my pointer starts suffering from St. Vitus' Dance.

Adding anything electronic to a handgun will *first* give it erratic behavior. Any designed functions will come second. Hearing the ickle solenoid in my Last Ditch Self-Determination Machine snapping backwards and forwards as it's embedded controller starts to think that the microwave, the wireless router and the bulk-eraser magnet next to the RAID array is my Secret Agent Coded Ring (tm, Crackerjack Corp, 1945) is not going to add to the peace-of-mind that device is supposed to bring to my life.

As for less pure motives... well, I've got a whole crate of 'em, help yerselves....

AmericanFreeBird · August 29, 2005, 02:12 PM

Other than they're stupid, nothing...

Glenn E. Meyer · August 29, 2005, 04:38 PM

Fingerprint based systems could be used with more than one user. It's simple to store multiple patterns. The Michael's of Oregon finger print recognition holster was able to store 50 patterns IIRC. However, I don't think that gadget went anyway for all the assorted problems.

Given the power of modern computer tech, the number of users isn't a problem. Everything else is though!!

I wouldn't buy one unless it had Star Trek level AI built in. Even then, their computers went berserk every once in awhile.

Guns should go bang and not have to have web browsers built into them.

Bog · August 29, 2005, 04:59 PM

Aw heck, Glen, most current fingerprint scanners can be defeated with a gummi bear anyway....

Waitone · August 29, 2005, 05:12 PM

Until the governor of NJ is willing to mandate the use of smart guns by his personal protection detail the technology will go no where.

alan · August 29, 2005, 05:53 PM

Re What's Wrong With Samrt Guns, aside from the following, I suppose nothing much. Problems come with "aside from the following", a short listing of which appears below.

1. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and with these "smart guns", so-called, there a hellish large window for things to go wrong.

2. The concept of the "smart gun" violates the hell out of The Kiss Principle, (Keep It Simple Stupid).

3. Final point is as follows, your life likely being your most valuable possession. Assuming that one were willing to accept the claim that Smart Guns were a good idea, I'm not, exactly why are police sidearms exempted? According to legislation enacted in New Jersey, they are you know.

sendec · August 29, 2005, 05:54 PM

I'd bet in 50 years or so we will see "smart" technology in guns, if not sooner. If they can build fly by wire Falcon interceptors that hold up in combat, they could certainly do something as simple as a handgun. Right now I bet cost is prohibitive.

Guy B. Meredith · August 29, 2005, 08:03 PM

sendec,

If you are right, then the only 'smart' will be in the gun. See my post above.

MeekAndMild · August 29, 2005, 09:50 PM

Smart guns are a sci fi fantasy described by A.e.Van Vogt in his famous novel The Weapon Shops of Isher. The rest of the story is that not only were the guns designed to be shot only by their owners and only in self defence but the shop shuttled forward and backward in time so the government couldn't shut it down.

alan · August 29, 2005, 10:14 PM

MeekAndMild wrote:

Smart guns are a sci fi fantasy described by A.e.Van Vogt in his famous novel The Weapon Shops of Isher. The rest of the story is that not only were the guns designed to be shot only by their owners and only in self defence but the shop shuttled forward and backward in time so the government couldn't shut it down.

---------------

It's been many years since I've heard, read or seen reference to Van Vogt, however from what I recall, back when I used to read science fiction, on his worst day, Van Vogt, made more sense than the average politican ever did on his or her best day.

Ptown Beretta · August 30, 2005, 01:42 AM

To address the issue of. "police were shot with their own guns".

I am sorry, but this statement is only true in the mind that believe guns have absolute ownership. In the eyes of any warrior, the weapon belongs to the one who is holding it.

That is the fallacy of the smart gun. Don't let THE gun get away.

blackmind · August 30, 2005, 02:58 AM

Quote:

I'd bet in 50 years or so we will see "smart" technology in guns, if not sooner. If they can build fly by wire Falcon interceptors that hold up in combat, they could certainly do something as simple as a handgun. Right now I bet cost is prohibitive.

Ah, but "fly-by-wire" is not "WIRELESS," is it?

Why must you mix apples and oranges?

I would think it's a lot simpler to make a secure WIRED system, which can be shielded in various ways, than it is to make a wireLESS system, such as "secret decoder ring to receiver implanted in gun."

Fingerprint recognition system? Um, what if you happen to need your gun while wearing gloves?

Is that inconceivable? Not in my view. And what of hands smeared with dirt or grease, or even covered in blood?! Could the fingerprint system reliably detect its authorized user and enable the gun?

-blackmind

August 27, 2005, 10:11 PM	#1
Ichiro Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 888	What's wrong with smart guns? I prefer to rely on my own common sense and training to maintain gun safety, and would rather have fewer controls/locks/safeties instead of more. This "smart gun" idea, I know, is just another attempt to make guns less usable and more expensive for people who have accepted the responsibility of gun ownership. Off the top of my head, the problems I see with "smart guns" are: One more "feature" is one more thing that can malfunction. Malfunctions are unacceptable on guns intended for defense. Any extra and expendable "feature" will result in the gun costing more money, with no additional usability. My wife and I both use our guns. If the hand imprint, or whatever the smart gun uses to identify its owner can identify only me, that is a big liability. The security of my home depends on both my wife and I being able to use our guns. I am totally opposed to the "smart gun" concept for civilian guns, but I am sure there are more good reasons for my stance than what I've listed. If you can think of more, please share them. ~Ichiro

August 27, 2005, 10:14 PM	#2
butch50 Senior Member Join Date: April 15, 2005 Location: Republic of Texas Posts: 1,403	I can not fathom that the technology for such a thing is 100% reliable and ready and on at all times. Sounds like something that will be very finicky. My first fear would be that in a SD situation it wouldn't work. My other first fear is that it is yet another chipping away of our rights to be free individuals. __________________ ‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’ ~ Mahatma Ghandi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446 ‘‘The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.’’ ~ Patrick Henry

August 27, 2005, 11:25 PM	#4
Guy B. Meredith Senior Member Join Date: August 29, 1999 Location: Salem, Oregon Posts: 1,581	First you need to consider the purpose of the 'smart' device. Prevent theft? Prevent someone taking it from you in combat? Pickpocket? Prevent use by children? How old are the children? Read my signature. If anyone against whom the gun is to be protected is able to take or steal and carry it off the mechnism is worthless. For short time frames or where the taker can't use tools they might work. __________________ Smart Gun + 1 Battery + 3 Wires = Dumb Gun PC = Agenda driven groupthink filter on reality. Apostrophes denote ownership or missing letters NOT plurals!

August 28, 2005, 01:13 PM	#6
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	The smart gun issue is complex. Here's a list of factors: 1. Cops do get shot by their own weapons so there was motivation to stop that. I think the percentage is about 30% of shootings but I might misremember. 2. There are accidential shootings by kids or other unauthorized folk in the civilian world and that was a motivation. The number is small though. 3. Antigun folks thought that by mandating smart guns you could increase the price and reduce purchases. It would also act as a precedent for more control - thus a slippery slope attack on gun usage 4. Gun companies saw this as a good product. Why? a. Glock had captured most of the LEO market from SW and Colt. If they could come up with a gun and get in mandated for cops, they could capture sales again. b. Surveys showed that there was a substantial self-defense civilian market for them. Folks who have kids or worry about the gun being taken away from them were interested in a smart gun and thus this might be a good addition to the product line (that makes sense in a business way if the gun would work and one avoided the politics) c. Given the political attack on guns, some companies saw that by introducing smart guns they could appease antigunners. Like SW did in their agreement. 5. The guns would be difficult to use - a. It could malfunction as stated b. The only one user issue is a red herring as modern electronics can handle more than one user quite easily. Some systems could learn and store 50 patterns. However, it is not clear that the recognition really works that well in any case. I have a friend close to one of the projects and he says that it really never works right. Kind of like the ABM missiles - do they work? Well - don't ask. c. What about gloves, blood and goo? Not really mentioned with fingerprint systems. The radio, magnetic rings systems might not care. d. Cops wouldn't go near them as they don't trust them and that negates the market attraction. 6. Research labs are interested as they get sucker grant money from the Feds to work on this. To summarize - if there were such tech that really worked, a smart gun with programming for more than one person and/or set of hands is a reasonable product for some markets and uses. Prison guards for instance or the family that wants a gun that kids can't use. However, the current state is such that such guns don't exist. Also, the political risk of them being mandated as a slippery slope attack on the RKBA is such that this small hypothetical benefit isn't worth it. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

August 28, 2005, 02:41 PM	#11
Guy B. Meredith Senior Member Join Date: August 29, 1999 Location: Salem, Oregon Posts: 1,581	If the smart gun is to protect LEO, then citizens don't need them. Having 'smart' guns around children encourages sloppy safety practices. Suppose the lock malfunctions; solenoid sticks in 'on' position or some such? If it is sitting around accessible to children it is accessible to thieves. Per my signature the 'smart' gun is ineffectual against thieves or children old enough to have had basic science classes. A gun safe is best by far. Is that civilian market that the research shows is interested actually going to purchase or are they just saying they want firearms owners to have to deal with the 'smart' mechanism? __________________ Smart Gun + 1 Battery + 3 Wires = Dumb Gun PC = Agenda driven groupthink filter on reality. Apostrophes denote ownership or missing letters NOT plurals! Last edited by Guy B. Meredith; August 29, 2005 at 12:05 AM.

August 27, 2005, 11:02 PM	#3
USP45usp Junior member Join Date: May 17, 2000 Location: Eugene, OR Posts: 3,427	Use computers, or anything that depends on a redundant system that always seems to fail. Use guns, based on 100+ years of not being changed except in very small ways. Let the cops (LEO's) and the Feds use them first, and then after a couple of years, I may turn. If the LEO's are exempt, as well as the feds..... NO WAY! Wayne

August 28, 2005, 01:11 AM	#5
Ptown Beretta Junior member Join Date: August 20, 2005 Posts: 98	Hmm, well for one, there is a huge agenda behind the smart gun. I really tink that is enough for me. I want my gun to go bang every time.

August 28, 2005, 01:27 PM	#7
USP45usp Junior member Join Date: May 17, 2000 Location: Eugene, OR Posts: 3,427	Besides what Glenn mentioned (+1 BTW): Smart guns will be computerized. Therefore, they cannot be used by LEO's or the military as an EMP will disable the guns when they will be most needed. Smart guns will be computerized. Therefore, civilians cannot use them during an EMP also. Computers have been known to fail and to be subject to viruses and "bot" programs. Hackers are prevalent and are getting better. This technology can, and will be, used by muggers/criminals to deactivate the "smartgun" and render it useless. Same goes (above) for LEO's and military if they are forced to use them. What can be "turned on" can be "turned off". Now, lets go with the "magnetic ring". I don't wear jewely, not even a watch of which I collect. Loss of the ring. Rings are lost all the time and what "hoops" will you be forced to get a new one? What makes one think that these "rings" won't be available on the black market. And to expand, how many strength combinations will need to be created? I mean, if they are just magnets, how hard will it be to make the rings by the criminals? If computerized (revisited): Will you have to "plug in" your gun at night to charge the battery? If so, what do you do during the night if you need your gun? Exactly where are you going to put all the chips and wires? There is little to no room in the interior of the gun itself (handguns). Grips? What if you crack a grip and need to replace? What if you want a nice pair of Hakan's? The lists can go on and on. Wayne

August 28, 2005, 01:31 PM	#8
Russ538 Senior Member Join Date: August 18, 2005 Location: PA Posts: 228	Does anyone know whether these guns can be set for multiple users? Personally, I dislike the idea. Wayne and Glenn pretty much hit the nail right on the head. Those reasons are plenty. I'm just curious as to whether the thing could be set up for more than one person to use.

August 28, 2005, 02:06 PM	#9
Don H Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2000 Location: SLC,Utah Posts: 2,704	I do believe that New Jersey has exempted its law enforcement agencies from having to use the smart gun technology when (if) it's implemented.

August 28, 2005, 11:06 PM	#12
Waitone Senior Member Join Date: March 19, 2000 Posts: 2,904	Only if it uses Apple's operating system. __________________ "Given a choice between good intentions and human nature, I'll go with human nature every time."--Me, 2002.

August 29, 2005, 02:03 PM	#14
Bog Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 2002 Location: England. Where Great Britain used to be. Posts: 775	Hum. Even assuming motives as Pure as the Driven Snow on behalf of those pushing for "smartguns" (Ha! Smartguns are what Vasquez and Drake used to hose Aliens in that atmosphere processor back on LV-426...) While it's possible to come up with a weapon which will only fire when the user is carrying the right Secret Agent Coded Ring (tm. Crackerjack Corp, 1945), that would put batteries in the gun. Way back when I used to fly aeroplanes semi-frequently, there was a running joke that a "Flashlight" was a metal tube used to carry dead batteries in. The same would apply here. I'm sorry, but the charging cradle for my palmtop spends half it's life unplugged. I plug in my 'phone charger when the 'phone is giving me Low Battery warnings. I change the batteries in my mouse when my pointer starts suffering from St. Vitus' Dance. Adding anything electronic to a handgun will first give it erratic behavior. Any designed functions will come second. Hearing the ickle solenoid in my Last Ditch Self-Determination Machine snapping backwards and forwards as it's embedded controller starts to think that the microwave, the wireless router and the bulk-eraser magnet next to the RAID array is my Secret Agent Coded Ring (tm, Crackerjack Corp, 1945) is not going to add to the peace-of-mind that device is supposed to bring to my life. As for less pure motives... well, I've got a whole crate of 'em, help yerselves.... __________________ Venetian Blinds: Sunlight with Scanlines.

August 29, 2005, 02:12 PM	#15
AmericanFreeBird Member Join Date: September 7, 2004 Location: Northeast US Posts: 40	Other than they're stupid, nothing... __________________ Sis pacis , instruo pro bellum – If you want peace, prepare for war… Author Unknown It is not for honor or glory or wealth that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life. -- Declaration of Arbroath, Scottland, 1320ad "With great power comes great responsibility." "...but as for me, give me liberty or give me Death!"

August 29, 2005, 04:38 PM	#16
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Fingerprint based systems could be used with more than one user. It's simple to store multiple patterns. The Michael's of Oregon finger print recognition holster was able to store 50 patterns IIRC. However, I don't think that gadget went anyway for all the assorted problems. Given the power of modern computer tech, the number of users isn't a problem. Everything else is though!! I wouldn't buy one unless it had Star Trek level AI built in. Even then, their computers went berserk every once in awhile. Guns should go bang and not have to have web browsers built into them. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

August 29, 2005, 04:59 PM	#17
Bog Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 2002 Location: England. Where Great Britain used to be. Posts: 775	Aw heck, Glen, most current fingerprint scanners can be defeated with a gummi bear anyway.... __________________ Venetian Blinds: Sunlight with Scanlines.

August 29, 2005, 05:12 PM	#18
Waitone Senior Member Join Date: March 19, 2000 Posts: 2,904	Until the governor of NJ is willing to mandate the use of smart guns by his personal protection detail the technology will go no where. __________________ "Given a choice between good intentions and human nature, I'll go with human nature every time."--Me, 2002.

August 29, 2005, 05:53 PM	#19
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	Re What's Wrong With Samrt Guns, aside from the following, I suppose nothing much. Problems come with "aside from the following", a short listing of which appears below. 1. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, and with these "smart guns", so-called, there a hellish large window for things to go wrong. 2. The concept of the "smart gun" violates the hell out of The Kiss Principle, (Keep It Simple Stupid). 3. Final point is as follows, your life likely being your most valuable possession. Assuming that one were willing to accept the claim that Smart Guns were a good idea, I'm not, exactly why are police sidearms exempted? According to legislation enacted in New Jersey, they are you know.

August 29, 2005, 05:54 PM	#20
sendec Junior member Join Date: April 18, 2005 Posts: 517	I'd bet in 50 years or so we will see "smart" technology in guns, if not sooner. If they can build fly by wire Falcon interceptors that hold up in combat, they could certainly do something as simple as a handgun. Right now I bet cost is prohibitive.

August 29, 2005, 08:03 PM	#21
Guy B. Meredith Senior Member Join Date: August 29, 1999 Location: Salem, Oregon Posts: 1,581	sendec, If you are right, then the only 'smart' will be in the gun. See my post above. __________________ Smart Gun + 1 Battery + 3 Wires = Dumb Gun PC = Agenda driven groupthink filter on reality. Apostrophes denote ownership or missing letters NOT plurals!

August 29, 2005, 09:50 PM	#22
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,988	Smart guns are a sci fi fantasy described by A.e.Van Vogt in his famous novel The Weapon Shops of Isher. The rest of the story is that not only were the guns designed to be shot only by their owners and only in self defence but the shop shuttled forward and backward in time so the government couldn't shut it down. __________________ In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.

August 29, 2005, 10:14 PM	#23
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	MeekAndMild wrote: Smart guns are a sci fi fantasy described by A.e.Van Vogt in his famous novel The Weapon Shops of Isher. The rest of the story is that not only were the guns designed to be shot only by their owners and only in self defence but the shop shuttled forward and backward in time so the government couldn't shut it down. --------------- It's been many years since I've heard, read or seen reference to Van Vogt, however from what I recall, back when I used to read science fiction, on his worst day, Van Vogt, made more sense than the average politican ever did on his or her best day.

August 30, 2005, 01:42 AM	#24
Ptown Beretta Junior member Join Date: August 20, 2005 Posts: 98	To address the issue of. "police were shot with their own guns". I am sorry, but this statement is only true in the mind that believe guns have absolute ownership. In the eyes of any warrior, the weapon belongs to the one who is holding it. That is the fallacy of the smart gun. Don't let THE gun get away.