or an Energizer battery? Military will love this; a weapon that can only be fired by one individual. Keep dreaming.
As to utility, the technology would have to be flawless before we would give smart guns to law enforcement officers whose daily job potentially involves draw and shoot situations. You obviously could not use “password” technology to deactivate the safety – whether the “unique grip” technology will actually work remains to be seen.
In the home a simple password would prevent child tragedies. If these stats are accurate we really need to do this:
“The unsafe storage of firearms is a public health and safety issue in the United States. A 2000 study of firearm storage patterns in U.S. homes found that “[o]f the homes with children and firearms, 55% were reported to have 1 or more firearms in an unlocked place,” and 43% reported keeping guns without a trigger lock in an unlocked place.5 A 2005 study on adult firearm storage practices in U.S. homes found that over 1.69 million children and youth under age 18 are living in homes with loaded and unlocked firearms.6 In addition, 73% of children under age 10 living in homes with guns reported knowing the location of their parents’ firearms”
And I think password locks would work for public carry holders as well. They "think" they need guns when they go to church (sorry Quad) but the reality is they are far more likely to shoot themselves than face an actual draw and shoot situation.
As for Second Amendment ramifications, you would have to pose that question to a real attorney. But the Unemployed Porn Star view would be that requiring a safety device on a gun would not infringe anyone’s Second Amendment rights. Fed law already requires safeties or secure storage for handgun sales.
Apparently, President Obama reads the P & R Board because a day after I ranted about needing a smart gun regulation, the President announced he is starting the ball rolling on this.
OK, he just taking baby steps- we are going to commit more federal money to the program but hey it is a start. Apparently, the idea is that if the federal government will start buying smart guns, this huge market will motivate gun makers to improvement the technology and make smart guns commercially feasible.
Think about it – not only would this solve the child shooting problem but how about Fast and Furious – criminals couldn’t use stolen guns, or guns bought by straw men (say hello to the San Bernardino shooters). Is there anyone on the Board who says this is a bad idea? (Sorry Willy, your post was too late to be considered).
And best of all I think we can count on President Hillary to continue this good work. But if President Obama is reading the Board, maybe I should have posted about confiscation…
minutes do you think it will take to figure out how to bypass the Smart Gun electronics?
Well, let’s answer this for each scenario. For children, you probably have a 100% success rate. For accidental discharges, a 100% success right. For a criminal who take a policeman’s gun during a struggle and then shoots him – a common problem- another 100% success right. Adolescents contemplating suicide- 100% success rate.
I’d guess the technology would be hackable only in the case of professional criminals who get hold of these guns and have the expertise or can hire someone with the expertise to hack it. But that is not going to be a problem until 30 years in the future because they will continue to use existing guns before going to this much trouble. By then technology would be so good, the gun would probably be unhackable like the IPhone.
The better objection to this idea is that the smart technology will disable the gun when the user needs it to fire. I think that is what they are have to solve before we give a smart gun to a law enforcement officer.
Maybe you should rethink this one
Than dumb guns
...what is the downside to the legislation? There virtually always is a downside to any new law. That doesn't mean bc there is a negative, or negatives, the law shouldn't be passed bc there is no perfect legislation.
You are an attorney, or at least a fake one, so how would you argue the other side of this, if forced to do so?
When I know the potential pitfalls, and not just all the good things, I can make a more reasoned and thorough decision.
It does make sense to me on many levels, however.
at least for first and second generation smart guns. But that is usually true of any safety device. There is a smart gun web site that offers smart guns for $1700 and up. So probably only the upper middle class homeowners would be willing to pay this much to keep children safe in the home. Blacks in the projects – not so much.
As to utility, the technology would have to be flawless before we would give smart guns to law enforcement officers whose daily job potentially involves draw and shoot situations. You obviously could not use “password” technology to deactivate the safety – whether the “unique grip” technology will actually work remains to be seen.
In the home a simple password would prevent child tragedies. If these stats are accurate we really need to do this:
“The unsafe storage of firearms is a public health and safety issue in the United States. A 2000 study of firearm storage patterns in U.S. homes found that “[o]f the homes with children and firearms, 55% were reported to have 1 or more firearms in an unlocked place,” and 43% reported keeping guns without a trigger lock in an unlocked place.5 A 2005 study on adult firearm storage practices in U.S. homes found that over 1.69 million children and youth under age 18 are living in homes with loaded and unlocked firearms.6 In addition, 73% of children under age 10 living in homes with guns reported knowing the location of their parents’ firearms”
And I think password locks would work for public carry holders as well. They "think" they need guns when they go to church (sorry Quad) but the reality is they are far more likely to shoot themselves than face an actual draw and shoot situation.
As for Second Amendment ramifications, you would have to pose that question to a real attorney. But the Unemployed Porn Star view would be that requiring a safety device on a gun would not infringe anyone’s Second Amendment rights. Fed law already requires safeties or secure storage for handgun sales
or an Energizer battery? Military will love this; a weapon that can only be fired by one individual. Keep dreaming.
As to utility, the technology would have to be flawless before we would give smart guns to law enforcement officers whose daily job potentially involves draw and shoot situations. You obviously could not use “password” technology to deactivate the safety – whether the “unique grip” technology will actually work remains to be seen.
In the home a simple password would prevent child tragedies. If these stats are accurate we really need to do this:
“The unsafe storage of firearms is a public health and safety issue in the United States. A 2000 study of firearm storage patterns in U.S. homes found that “[o]f the homes with children and firearms, 55% were reported to have 1 or more firearms in an unlocked place,” and 43% reported keeping guns without a trigger lock in an unlocked place.5 A 2005 study on adult firearm storage practices in U.S. homes found that over 1.69 million children and youth under age 18 are living in homes with loaded and unlocked firearms.6 In addition, 73% of children under age 10 living in homes with guns reported knowing the location of their parents’ firearms”
And I think password locks would work for public carry holders as well. They "think" they need guns when they go to church (sorry Quad) but the reality is they are far more likely to shoot themselves than face an actual draw and shoot situation.
As for Second Amendment ramifications, you would have to pose that question to a real attorney. But the Unemployed Porn Star view would be that requiring a safety device on a gun would not infringe anyone’s Second Amendment rights. Fed law already requires safeties or secure storage for handgun sales.
Solar cells how far behind the times are you ?
it will use a flux capacitor.
"military will love this"....how stupid are you?, do you really think the feature would be incorporated in military weapons.
You're welcome
2016 = GOP All The Way
Did you bother to read the Post before showing how ignorant you are?
"Behind times"?? You know shit about electronics...a Flux Capacitor was used in the Model "T". It's the small wood box with the two threaded terminals on top. Stick to subjects you are familiar with...if there are any.
it will use a flux capacitor.
"military will love this"....how stupid are you?, do you really think the feature would be incorporated in military weapons.
You're welcome
2016 = GOP All The Way
SARCASM ?
Talking about subjects you are not familiar with ............How stupid are you saying
"military will love this"......... do you really think the feature would be incorporated in military weapons.
Now go take two Midol and call DR Phil in the morning.
You're welcome
2016 = GOP WH, Senate and House
for defense of their families first?
if it doesn't work, no biggie, a few less libs to suck off the gubment trough