TexasCHLforum.com

Exactly^^^^

I'd like to know what they think is going to be accomplished by spending money researching "smart guns"

rentz wrote:I'd like to know what they think is going to be accomplished by spending money researching "smart guns"

That uneducated, illiterate ignoramus anti-gun miniature fascists will "feel" much safer with "smart" guns, as opposed with bunch of dumb guns. You see, it's all about how you make someone "feel" in this Ringling Brothers circus called Obama Administration.
Plus, they will have plenty money to spend thanks to our fearless leadership in the House. Great job guys!!!

In my opinion this is simply a move to make criminals of law abiding firearms gun owners. This administration's prosecution of federal firearms prosecutions has fallen dramatically over past levels. It's obvious they have no appetite to prosecute thugs and felons. Chicago, Los Angeles and New York have the lowest prosecution rates. Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts in 2012. In 2010 Chicago was 78th; amazing what Hope and Change can accomplish.

rentz wrote:I'd like to know what they think is going to be accomplished by spending money researching "smart guns"

They can say that the general public should have them but, the police and military are exempt.

MeMelYup wrote:

rentz wrote:I'd like to know what they think is going to be accomplished by spending money researching "smart guns"

They can say that the general public should have them but, the police and military are exempt.

So again, this is a concern about "what might happen" that calls for no forward progress. I don't think that's enough of a reason to start a line against the issue. I do recognize the possibility of legislation requiring that all personal firearms be smart would be massive taxation and limitation.

Apparently something similar was supported under Clinton and was taken up by Smith and Wesson. The result was a boycott by 2nd amendment supporters that almost sank S&W, so this technology has only moved forward in Europe.

I understand why most people have no use for a "smart" gun. If you've got kids, however, the possibility of this technology would help in a lot of situations. Basically, as a parent, I can't have an unlocked firearm anywhere. Either I carry the firearm or I lock it up, there's no putting it down to work on something or temporarily leaving it in the car that's parked in the garage. It's a hassle... And yes my child IS firearm trained, but the law says I can't leave anything in an available space and I take the responsibility seriously.

It isn't just the Feds, all liberal anti-gun utopias, like MA, give criminals a pass when it comes to violating gun laws, and only jail law abiding gun owners who make mistakes they can be hung for.

http://weaponsman.com/?p=28557#more-28557

Joshua Diaz, 36, pleaded not guilty to drug and firearms charges during his arraignment Thursday before Judge Michael Ripps in Springfield District Court.

State police stopped Diaz for a motor vehicle violation and seized two packets of heroin, 72 grams of marijuana and a loaded 38 caliber firearm, Assistant District Attorney Cary Szafranski said.

Ripps set bail at $20,000 and continued the case to Feb. 5.

A token bail of $2k cash. This is an example of how lawyers and judges in gun control jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, cooperate to minimize the laws’ impact on their fellow criminal justice system professionals, to wit, the criminals.

Now here’s the part we left out:

A Springfield man with 37 criminal convictions…

… Diaz has been arrested on firearms and breaking and entering charges as well.

Note, “arrested,” not, “convicted.” So he’s either out on bail on a gun charge, or he’s had a previous gun charge broomed or bargained down.

You would not get that deal, but until he actually commits a murder (or gets whacked himself, occupational hazard in the recreational pharmaceuticals biz), Joshua Diaz will. And then the Massachusetts papers will decry the “gun violence” and call for more punishment of those that did not do it

.

Liberals have zero interest in reducing gun crime.

cb1000rider wrote:I understand why most people have no use for a "smart" gun. If you've got kids, however, the possibility of this technology would help in a lot of situations. Basically, as a parent, I can't have an unlocked firearm anywhere. Either I carry the firearm or I lock it up, there's no putting it down to work on something or temporarily leaving it in the car that's parked in the garage. It's a hassle... And yes my child IS firearm trained, but the law says I can't leave anything in an available space and I take the responsibility seriously.

So? When ours were too young to be trusted on their own with a gun our guns either stayed locked up, or if accessible, trigger locked with the key on a chain around my neck. This was before fast opening personal gun safes for handguns were available. These days it would take me no more than 5 seconds to open my gun safe. If you need faster availability it should be on your person anyway.

But would you leave a "smart" gun somewhere accessible to a child and trust that it wouldn't malfunction and fire when it isn't supposed to? I wouldn't, so I see little value in "smart" guns for that purpose...in addition to seeing little value in a gun that only I can shoot, since that makes my guns effectively worthless to anyone else in the family that might need to use one for defense.

VMI77 wrote: So? When ours were too young to be trusted on their own with a gun our guns either stayed locked up, or if accessible, trigger locked with the key on a chain around my neck. This was before fast opening personal gun safes for handguns were available. These days it would take me no more than 5 seconds to open my gun safe. If you need faster availability it should be on your person anyway.

Right. Locked up or on your person. Those are the two choices today.

VMI77 wrote: But would you leave a "smart" gun somewhere accessible to a child and trust that it wouldn't malfunction and fire when it isn't supposed to? I wouldn't, so I see little value in "smart" guns for that purpose...in addition to seeing little value in a gun that only I can shoot, since that makes my guns effectively worthless to anyone else in the family that might need to use one for defense.

I wouldn't trust something brand new that I was the beta tester on. And I think you're right - they're not as good as they could be, but without new investment, they'll be something that "mostly" works - which isn't good enough for me.

Most of these technologies can be programmed so that anyone who is "able" to and "should" can use them. It's not 1:1.

If they work, like 99.9%+ - then I'd find it useful..

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: So? When ours were too young to be trusted on their own with a gun our guns either stayed locked up, or if accessible, trigger locked with the key on a chain around my neck. This was before fast opening personal gun safes for handguns were available. These days it would take me no more than 5 seconds to open my gun safe. If you need faster availability it should be on your person anyway.

Right. Locked up or on your person. Those are the two choices today.

VMI77 wrote: But would you leave a "smart" gun somewhere accessible to a child and trust that it wouldn't malfunction and fire when it isn't supposed to? I wouldn't, so I see little value in "smart" guns for that purpose...in addition to seeing little value in a gun that only I can shoot, since that makes my guns effectively worthless to anyone else in the family that might need to use one for defense.

I wouldn't trust something brand new that I was the beta tester on. And I think you're right - they're not as good as they could be, but without new investment, they'll be something that "mostly" works - which isn't good enough for me.

Most of these technologies can be programmed so that anyone who is "able" to and "should" can use them. It's not 1:1.

If they work, like 99.9%+ - then I'd find it useful..

For my kids, I wouldn't consider 99.9% a safe technology when it comes to something potentially lethal like a gun. I don't like to rely on technology because sooner or later it always fails. 99.9% safe just means that there is a 1 out of a 1,000 chance something can go wrong. That means that 1 of every 1,000 is going to malfunction. I wouldn't want my child to be the 1 out of the 1,000 that experienced a failure. So, while it might be extra insurance over just locking a gun up, I'd still lock the gun up even if it was a "smart" gun.

VMI77 wrote: For my kids, I wouldn't consider 99.9% a safe technology when it comes to something potentially lethal like a gun. I don't like to rely on technology because sooner or later it always fails. 99.9% safe just means that there is a 1 out of a 1,000 chance something can go wrong. That means that 1 of every 1,000 is going to malfunction. I wouldn't want my child to be the 1 out of the 1,000 that experienced a failure. So, while it might be extra insurance over just locking a gun up, I'd still lock the gun up even if it was a "smart" gun.

Can't disagree with you... But the result (for me) is that I won't carry as much as I might if I had a solution where the firearm didn't have to go back under lock and key.

Regardless, if the politics of this are too hot - no working solution will be developed.