scary thought about smart guns

L

legacy38

New member
I just had a scary thought about smart guns after watching the 60 Minutes segment tonight.

After I saw the part were thay said that the guns could be programed to read fingerprints of a person and to only let the "authorized" person fire the gun. Do any of you think that this could be the future of CCLs? Just think of all the possibilites that could entail.
 
If "smart" technology were available now, wouldn't it be applied first to $25,000 cars that are parked on the street rather than to $500 guns that are locked in a safe?
 
What worries me about smart guns is that they will use batteries. What if you forget to replace the batteries will it still function in a time of emergency, or will the gun be dead just like the intended just user?
Being electronic will it be sensitive to falls. How can we law abiding citizens know if it works? We all can't go to the shooting range to test it every time it falls.
 
I was under the impression that they automatically switch to "fire" when the battery is dead. If that's so, then it would seem that all you would have to do to turn a smart gun into a "dumb" gun is to pull out the battery...which shouldn't be too hard for a little kid to do.
 
Gents, even more scary is the thought that soon to come the gubmint will require that all handguns sold be of "smart gun" technology. Once this technology is "perfected" (I can hardly keep a straight face as I typed that...), expect this legislation to be born.

CMOS

------------------
Join GOA, NRA, LEAA and vote.


[This message has been edited by CMOS (edited November 03, 1999).]
 
CMOS
I think you're right about the gov't legislating a smart gun only requirement at some point. In fact, I believe some city (in NJ?) already tried to do just that.
What will be interesting from a legal aspect is whether the gov't can actually mandate such a requirement without assuming responsibility for any operational failures of these devices.
If they don't, then that leaves the manufacturer twisting in the wind when one of their customers dies due to a malfunction of the system.
If they pass legislation protecting the manufacturer from litigation, then they will violate the public's right to seek redress in the courts.
So who in his right mind is going to buy one of these things under those conditions? And if no one is willing to buy them, who is going to build them?
 
K, exactly my point. When the gubmint requires all new handguns to have smartgun technology, you and I will NOT buy. Since there will be no "regular" guns for you and I to buy, that means we will NOT be buying guns at all. Get it? This is going to be another method of slowly removing guns from society without even outlawing them. No one in their right mind would buy one of these "smart guns" - so we will be forced to buy them - or not.


"What will be interesting from a legal aspect is whether the gov't can actually mandate such a requirement without assuming responsibility for any operational failures of these devices."

HA HA HA HA! (sorry, just couldn't hold it in...) Has the government ever been held responsible for anything? They will breeze throught this like a white glove.

This is deep do-do for sure.

CMOS

------------------
Join GOA, NRA, LEAA and vote.


[This message has been edited by CMOS (edited November 03, 1999).]
 
the only way smart gun technology could become as common as airbags in cars is for all non smart guns to be confiscated
cars wear out and are replaced with newer ones
guns don't wear out as fast as cars

think about that

dZ
 
re "govewrnment" being held responsible for deasth.injuries caused "the authorized user" in the event of failures of "mandated smart guns", did anyone ever hear of a lovely little gambit known as "soverign immunity", very handy for these clowns to hide behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top