Smart Guns

Yeah, that's another thing about RFID, it is not totally secure against intent either, portable cloning technology shows that. You could probably build a box that can both scan and code a ring as you brush by someone carrying that you find by scanning people in a crowd with rings. Once you get a hit you follow them, crack them over the head with a nifty extending baton, take their gun and rob them and sell the gun and clone ring set. RFID while lowering some accidental gun deaths, will create a whole new racket and set of targets for organized crime.

Until you change the intent of society, it's impossible to control the intent of guns away from violence and crime. The intent lies withi the people, not product, and there is no technological solution to ill intent.
 
Last edited:
When they can do it with biometrics, I'm a buyer. With RFID I'm not. Now there is a less perfect ring solution, but is ineffective against foresight and intent. You could use a generic magnetic ring rather than RFID to activate a simple reed switch interlock. This would go a long way on the accidental and kid stuff problems for low cost in both production and reliability considerations being such a simple system, but again, a generic magnet provides no safety against intent.


Reed switches aren't much used anymore.

But funny you should mention cheap switches.

I have a Hall effect switch that failed at the house over the weekend that handles a rather critical function.

The system it's attached to is engineered to have a "bypass" mode which gives away the actual reliability of the device and what the engineer making the control panel thought about when using it for something relatively important.

So it's bypassed and will be repaired Wednesday. Life span was about three years in a relatively punishing physical shock environment and let's see here... about 2500 cycles. Had to do the math there on that one. Not very high for a firearm that's fired regularly for training. Maybe fine for a safe-Queen. Physical punishment of this device was much much lower than it would have been subjected to inside the handgrip of a firearm.

I have a pistol that has a magazine drop safety. Designed for a struggle in which the firearm is wrested away from the rightful operator. That's about the pinnacle of safety devices that work today in pistol design.

Those have gone through periods of being liked and disliked by law enforcement and the public, and generally they work. Drop the magazine, the pistol can't fire, even if chambered. Usually don't cause misfires or failure to fires.

Most self defense trainers will point out that getting that close in the first place was the mistake made. Pistols are standoff weapons, by at least a few feet. I put very little value on that particular feature on that pistol. Never had it activate unexpectedly under proper and normal handling. Have heard of a few physically breaking under the physical punishment of firearm recoil and render the pistol inop, but not on a large scale.
 
The thing firearms instructors fail to consider in the 'got to close' statement is that you don't choose the distance at which the confrontation initiates unless you are the aggressor.
 
The thing firearms instructors fail to consider in the 'got to close' statement is that you don't choose the distance at which the confrontation initiates unless you are the aggressor.


True. That's why you don't use a firearms instructor for self defense instruction. Kinda like hiring a cooking instructor to teach you how to use a knife in a fight. Ha.
 
I would buy one. If you know how to LEGALLY import one - PM me. Serious request.
 
Last edited:
Would you buy a car that will only start if you are the person sitting in it? Why? Why not?
 
The last I know about smart guns is there was some kind of bracelet the user would have to be wearing. I can see some really good and really bad out comes of the smart guns.

One thing I wonder about is price. The glock smart Gxx will now cost about $6,000 which will put firearms well out of the reach of poor inner city street thugs. Gone will be the days of the 50.00 Burners
 
The last I know about smart guns is there was some kind of bracelet the user would have to be wearing. I can see some really good and really bad out comes of the smart guns.

One thing I wonder about is price. The glock smart Gxx will now cost about $6,000 which will put firearms well out of the reach of poor inner city street thugs. Gone will be the days of the 50.00 Burners

$50 burners will never disappear, the 'smart safety' will be around for a long time before all the non smart stuff is gone.
 
I wouldn't. The pistol I trust my life to is going to be simple and reliable. The more 'technology' you add to it the less potential for reliability you get.

Same here. My Glock is ugly and simple, but it works everytime.
 
"Smart" guns are a very stupid idea. It is another attempt by the left to demonize the tool, not the person behind the tool.
 
"Smart" guns are a very stupid idea. It is another attempt by the left to demonize the tool, not the person behind the tool.

I'll agree and disagree.

Yes, I believe that some anti-gun people want to make guns unusable and thus they really like the broad sweeping requirement that every gun must be made "smart" regardless of how much it costs.

But there are potential valid applications of technology that could result in a net benefit. If LEOs don't want to run the risk of their weapons being used against them, then smart guns could be beneficial to them.

otoh - a properly secured firearm doesn't need "smart" technology to prevent the curious children from accidently shooting the gun.

Sometimes people can't resist trying to apply technology to problems that already have solutions, with the inevitable failure to consider unintended consequences.
 
What is so smart about guns anyway?
 
"Smart" guns are a very stupid idea. It is another attempt by the left to demonize the tool, not the person behind the tool.

Yeah, because no idiot has ever left a loaded gun in the house for their kids to find. The idea isn't an "attempt by the left to demonize" guns. It's the legislation behind the requirement for smart guns that's the problem. The guns themselves...never mind, you'll never get it.

You know the biggest market for the product is the person who doesn't really like guns, but thinks they need one for protection at home. They wouldn't otherwise have one, but could be sold on the fact that they would be the only one able to fire the gun. There are millions of people just like this, ranging from parents of small children to the elderly.

And it would probably save a handful of lives each year.
 
We need smart guns with bluetooth so the cops can shut peoples guns off.:lol::rofl::D:lol:;):yikes:
 
Chutes are a dumb idea for airplanes. Anyone adding a chute to an airplane will immediately go out of business because NOBODY would EVER buy one.... I mean, the cost to repack the sucker. Deal breaker!

It's just a tool - just like a hammer. If you have a need, you buy it. Let the market decide...

(Seriously, if someone runs into a link on where to buy one of these - I'm very interested.)
 
I think this thread has gone on long enough. Maybe we can get Henning in here to say a few words about 1913, the Federal Reserve, and "European Banking families (WINK) (WINK)" to finish off the conversation?
 
I'll agree and disagree.

Yes, I believe that some anti-gun people want to make guns unusable and thus they really like the broad sweeping requirement that every gun must be made "smart" regardless of how much it costs.

But there are potential valid applications of technology that could result in a net benefit. If LEOs don't want to run the risk of their weapons being used against them, then smart guns could be beneficial to them.

otoh - a properly secured firearm doesn't need "smart" technology to prevent the curious children from accidently shooting the gun.

Sometimes people can't resist trying to apply technology to problems that already have solutions, with the inevitable failure to consider unintended consequences.

Cops can secure guns in their holsters, and have situational awareness to avoid having their gun fall into the wrong hands. There are very, very few instances of this happening. Also, technology fails, and then a cop or person could be put in harms way should the gun not fire. Very BAD idea all around.
 
Since I'm fairly new to this site, a thread like this gives me a good education on where people are coming from. I really didn't expect there to be much political talk in an aviation forum. What was I thinking?LOL

Lee
 
If it was just left to the free market then there wouldn't have been much of a fuss. The problem is that New Jersey mandated that only so-called "smart" guns be sold once it was determined that they were available for sale somewhere in the U.S.

The interviewee tried to justify the law by claiming that it would protect law enforcement officers from being shot with their own guns. The interviewer failed to point out that the law exempts law enforcement officers.
 
Since I'm fairly new to this site, a thread like this gives me a good education on where people are coming from. I really didn't expect there to be much political talk in an aviation forum. What was I thinking?LOL

Lee

A month ago, this discussion would have been in The Spin Zone. The SZ has been closed so political discussions have become the norm here.
 
Back
Top