Selling Smart Guns Is Bad

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,286
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
More product development is needed, but will not happen until that lady in New Joisey gets rid of her "gun safety" ban as she has said she will do now that she understands the unintended consequences her ban has caused.

They need to develop a "smart" gun in a higher caliber, one that is as reliable as my S&W revolver, and one with better waterproofing than we currently see in the marine industry. I expect it to be more expensive than an ordinary gun and have no problem with that, but it has to work at least as well as other guns on the market. A .22 that requires a geek to get its attention and can't run a magazine without jamming is just not going to cut it.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,286
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
More product development is needed, but will not happen until that lady in New Joisey gets rid of her "gun safety" ban...
Bullshit. The one has nothing to do with the other.

You are wanking in your echo chamber again.
Loretta Weinberg disagrees...

As noted above, she acknowledges the truth about what her law has caused and wants to repeal it.

Wow. Some NJ Pols Begin to Grasp Unintended Consequences

They're beginning to understand that the NJ law mandating "smart" gun sales is the main thing stopping the development of the technology and they're starting to talk about amending or just scrapping the law.
And months later, the beginning is beginning again.

...So why can't you buy a smart gun in the United States today? One reason is gun-shop owners won't sell them. When one Maryland dealer announced he would try to sell one smart gun he was immediately attacked with email and phone call threats by people who believed that he could have triggered a New Jersey ban on regular handguns that don't possess smart-gun technology.

Turns out that the sale of smart guns could actually restrict gun sales, at least in New Jersey, where a 13-year-old law mandates all regular handguns sold in the state be smart guns if and when they become available for sale anywhere else in the country. Acknowledging how this law has actually inadvertently impeded smart guns from coming onto the marketplace, New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg, who sponsored the original mandate, tells 60 Minutes that as early as next week, she will ask her state's legislature to repeal the law and replace it with one mandating at least one smart gun be for sale wherever weapons are sold in her state....
If they make a good "smart" gun then consumers like me will mandate that retailers carry it or they will lose the sale to someone who will carry it.


 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
59,907
4,606
De Nile
To Tom Ray, the engineer when the levees around New Orleans were failing "if we just fix the wing damn in Missoiri all will be fine. Even the Mayor of Podunkville agrees with me"

(Likely Tom Ray quote)

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,220
284
near Seattle, Wa
More product development is needed, but will not happen until that lady in New Joisey gets rid of her "gun safety" ban...
Bullshit. The one has nothing to do with the other.

You are wanking in your echo chamber again.
Loretta Weinberg disagrees...

(Snipped...a tangential repeat of Tom's peripheral outrage)
More fibbing. You casually display a credibility problem, again.

Where does Loretta Weinberg, your latest obsession, say that product development on smart guns is prevented by her original proposal?

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
Absolutely, and given Tesla just recalled all S models for faulty seat belts, I think seat belts should be removed from all cars due to that.
I think the analogy would work better if the govt mandated everyone only buy teslas once a tesla is available for sale anywhere and if the car would not start or drive at all because the seatbelt was broken. I think the concept of a smart gun is good if you could ever really get it to work, but guns are a fairly primitive weapon and I suspect we will see alternate weapons platforms before we see reliable smart gun technology. It is difficult to picture weatherproof, shockproof, and 5 9s reliability in and electronic control inside a firearm which by it's nature involves a controlled explosion with particles and residue being pushed into and out of every corner of the weapon during every shot. Just yesterday, I spent a half hour trying to get my wife's bluetooth headset re-paired with her phone. If that was on a fire extinguisher the manufacturer would be sued into oblivion the first time it failed. A self defense gun is no different in nature (aside from of course the fact that you can not cut a steak with it), than the fire extinguisher. By design, it is meant to be used in emergencies and should be as close to 100% reliable as possible in that scenario.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,286
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
Selling Smart Guns to Cops is Still Bad

Unless that lady in New Joisey has repealed her stupid law without my noticing it.

At least it raises an argument that tends to be ignored when we're only talking about citizens, not government employees...

“Once we open that door I think it is going to be very hard to close it,” said Tyrone Police Chief Brandon Perkins, who is opposed to requiring law enforcement departments to purchase the technology. "There is always that potential for failure -- in our world there is no room for failure.”
Guess what? There are not different "worlds" when it comes to defending your life. There's only one: yours. The only room for failure is your death. Yes, even if you have no badge at all.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,220
284
near Seattle, Wa
The Badgeless Wonder has spoken. He seems to feel his llife is on the line daily, he says it's a life-or-death situation...

Badges are unimportant to him. (He is bigger than steenking badges.)

He is the very equal of law enforcement, and is in his own little imaginary militia, too.

Tom feels a need to bring up badges a lot.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,286
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
Interesting new technology that I would like to see developed AFTER New Jersey gets rid of their stupid law.

While smart guns require a weapon to recognize the owner's fingerprint, Kiyani's Identilock is a device that attaches to a gun and would be released when it recognizes the owner's fingerprint.

"My device is an add-on, an accessory that can be purchased separately," Kiyani told CNNMoney.
Pretty cool idea. The article says the owner can authorize anyone's fingerprints and can remove authorization at will. It's a bit expensive but I would expect the price to fall and it costs less than getting a whole new gun just to have a fingerprint lockout feature.

The article gets this part wrong:

The NRA, however, sees smart guns as potentially a form of gun control. New Jersey already requires gun retailers to sell smart guns, a development some gun rights activists find alarming.
It's not the requirement that smart guns be sold that is objectionable. That's merely meddlesome, but is far more tolerable than the part the article doesn't mention: banning the sale of "non-smart" guns. Yes, banning the sale of common guns is seen as a form of gun control. Not just potentially. It is what it is.

How an add-on device would fit into that regulatory scheme is unclear to me. Would they allow sales if and only if such a device is also purchased? And require that it actually be used?

Seems technology has already outrun this law, something I'd expect to continue. If they require a device like this one, that's a subsidy to this inventor but also something likely to inhibit future inventors whose ideas might not quite fit into what is required, but might be better ideas.

 

Rockdog

Super Anarchist
7,833
0
Illinois
Similar system for checking out vehicles at work. Works most of the time. Takes about 3 to 4 seconds. Sometimes no worky. Less reliable than any Appliance in my home.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
59,907
4,606
De Nile
Interesting new technology that I would like to see developed AFTER New Jersey gets rid of their stupid law.

While smart guns require a weapon to recognize the owner's fingerprint, Kiyani's Identilock is a device that attaches to a gun and would be released when it recognizes the owner's fingerprint.

"My device is an add-on, an accessory that can be purchased separately," Kiyani told CNNMoney.
Pretty cool idea. The article says the owner can authorize anyone's fingerprints and can remove authorization at will. It's a bit expensive but I would expect the price to fall and it costs less than getting a whole new gun just to have a fingerprint lockout feature.

The article gets this part wrong:

The NRA, however, sees smart guns as potentially a form of gun control. New Jersey already requires gun retailers to sell smart guns, a development some gun rights activists find alarming.
It's not the requirement that smart guns be sold that is objectionable. That's merely meddlesome, but is far more tolerable than the part the article doesn't mention: banning the sale of "non-smart" guns. Yes, banning the sale of common guns is seen as a form of gun control. Not just potentially. It is what it is.

How an add-on device would fit into that regulatory scheme is unclear to me. Would they allow sales if and only if such a device is also purchased? And require that it actually be used?

Seems technology has already outrun this law, something I'd expect to continue. If they require a device like this one, that's a subsidy to this inventor but also something likely to inhibit future inventors whose ideas might not quite fit into what is required, but might be better ideas.
cars can't be sold without seatbelts....

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
Sure, but your car still starts if you don't put it on, and the seat belts themselves work as designed with near perfect reliability. In fact, they even put them in police cars too. The problem with smart gun technology is that it is unreliable, difficult to manage, costly, and renders the device unusable if not engaged. The main problem is that it simply does not work as promised, but is being mandated by law to be used in guns in some places with folks clamoring for it to be used everywhere. When police are using smart guns, I think you will find civilian objections to the technology being mandated on new guns will disappear.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,286
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
Interesting new technology that I would like to see developed AFTER New Jersey gets rid of their stupid law.

While smart guns require a weapon to recognize the owner's fingerprint, Kiyani's Identilock is a device that attaches to a gun and would be released when it recognizes the owner's fingerprint.

"My device is an add-on, an accessory that can be purchased separately," Kiyani told CNNMoney.
Pretty cool idea. The article says the owner can authorize anyone's fingerprints and can remove authorization at will. It's a bit expensive but I would expect the price to fall and it costs less than getting a whole new gun just to have a fingerprint lockout feature.

The article gets this part wrong:

The NRA, however, sees smart guns as potentially a form of gun control. New Jersey already requires gun retailers to sell smart guns, a development some gun rights activists find alarming.
It's not the requirement that smart guns be sold that is objectionable. That's merely meddlesome, but is far more tolerable than the part the article doesn't mention: banning the sale of "non-smart" guns. Yes, banning the sale of common guns is seen as a form of gun control. Not just potentially. It is what it is.

How an add-on device would fit into that regulatory scheme is unclear to me. Would they allow sales if and only if such a device is also purchased? And require that it actually be used?

Seems technology has already outrun this law, something I'd expect to continue. If they require a device like this one, that's a subsidy to this inventor but also something likely to inhibit future inventors whose ideas might not quite fit into what is required, but might be better ideas.
cars can't be sold without seatbelts....
Of course they can. A guy I know has a collection that fills a giant grocery store (he moved it out of the old Mega-Lo-Mart). Lots of them predate the seatbelt requirement but are street legal and can be sold.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,286
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
Seems like a national requirement for trigger locks on weapons would solve this problem. Or smart guns.
A national requirement for trigger locks would be unconstitutional for the reasons given in the Heller case. But that's not why I brought this reply to this thread.

Unfortunately, I remain opposed to the development of smart guns until NJ changes their stupid law.

The woman who wrote it realized it was stupid and tried to change it, but Chris Christie decided to be even more stupid and killed the reform with a pocket veto.

Once they get rid of that stupid law, I'll support the development of smart guns.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

plchacker

Super Anarchist
5,202
16
Mobile, AL
I believe I can still buy an old car without seat belts, even though seat belts are required on new cars...

You're absolutely right in that it does nothing for the installed base of weapons in circulation.

but 10-15 years from now - it would make a significant difference.
You truly have not freaking idea. I currently own guns dating back to the 1870's. The newest gun that I own is now ten years old. To think that guns simply disappear after a few years is crazy. Well made guns will last more that a lifetime.

The only way to provide your wet dream is to confiscate guns across the US. That will not happen. There will be an armed revolt before that is allowed to happen, and I'm guessing the government is outnumbered.

Smart guns are a curiosity, not much more. The left wants to use that idea as a means to eliminate all guns at some point. The left is woefully under educated and hopelessly optimistic about a world where citizens are not allowed to own firearms. It would take a house to house sweep. It would take people willing to conduct that sweep. Those people would end up dead in short order.

 
G

Guest

Guest
Sure, but your car still starts if you don't put it on, and the seat belts themselves work as designed with near perfect reliability. In fact, they even put them in police cars too. The problem with smart gun technology is that it is unreliable, difficult to manage, costly, and renders the device unusable if not engaged. The main problem is that it simply does not work as promised, but is being mandated by law to be used in guns in some places with folks clamoring for it to be used everywhere. When police are using smart guns, I think you will find civilian objections to the technology being mandated on new guns will disappear.
Yep.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,286
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
The objection is not to a mandate on new guns, though that would be pretty objectionable to me.

The objection is to a ban on sales of ALL other guns once "smart" guns are on the market. That's what the New Jersey law does.

When we required seat belts, air bags, etc, we did not ban sales of all the old cars on the road.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,286
1,677
Punta Gorda FL
NPR did a story on Colt's historic failed attempt to make a smart gun

ROSE: So the technical problems were real. Colt's engineers were confident they could solve them. But owner Donald Zilkha had another problem - a people problem.

ZILKHA: I hadn't totally fully understood the culture.

ROSE: Remember, he's a New Yorker - doesn't own a gun. Zilkha started hearing from gun owners who hated this idea. They figure that once a smart gun was on the market, it was only a matter of time before the government said all guns had to be smart guns....
Rose doesn't mention that that's exactly what the government in New Jersey did, proving it was only a matter of a time.

ROSE: Rice says there was so much anger about Colt's smart gun research that some gun owners actually boycotted the gun company. So before Zilkha could reach those millions of new customers, he had to win over the police and skeptical gun owners. And Colt bet big that showing off their state-of-the-art smart gun prototype would help. The company invited a reporter from The Wall Street Journal in for a demonstration.

VANESSA O'CONNELL: They were feeling really confident that they had finally got this technology down.

ROSE: Vanessa O'Connell was that reporter. She went up to Connecticut to interview the CEO at the time, the guy Donald Zilkha had hired to run Colt. An engineer brought out the smart gun, and he explained that it was only supposed to fire if the shooter was wearing a special wristband with a little radio frequency transmitter inside. The CEO put on the wristband and went to pull the trigger.

O'CONNELL: And it didn't shoot. Just silence....
D'OH!

 
Top