Smart Guns Could Be Coming

[DavenRoxy 1,073]



Have you not read some of the posts here? Do you think someone packing heat to take their wife to dinner in the bad part of town, or someone who keeps a small arsenal on them at all times including an AK47 in their vehicle, or someone who continuously claims he will shoot first and ask questions later when he feels threatened, to be the ramblings of rational people? I don't, and there are many more examples of this irresponsible behavior that has been posted here by the gun aficionados.

The other sector of the gun aficionado crowd are the ones who appear to be fairly rational, but they blame everyone else for the gun problem and don't believe it is their responsibility to try to help find a resolution to the tens of thousands of deaths each year at the end of a gun. They will not even entertain any ideas that change the status quo or inconvenience themselves one bit. Case in point, the first reply this thread received stating the idea of smart guns is stupid, no dialogue about why, it just is. The link then posted to back up the claim that the idea of smart guns is stupid is to a fringe gun blog that concludes smart guns are merely a means to gun prohibition. It's their right to own guns and no matter how many people are killed each year, they refuse to do anything about it.

Based on what I've read of your posts, I don't lump you in the gun aficionado crowd as it's known here. I apologize if it came off that way. There are a few rational and logical gun owners who post here and it's nice to have rational and logical conversations with them.

Actually, he brought up three valid items that don't make sense with the concept of the idea:

like no one ever wears gloves in cold weather.

like it's only available with small caliber pistols as the electronics can't handle larger caliber pistols.

and this same bill wants pistols made prior to this to be retrofitted if sold.

Those items will be HARD to overcome, IMHO.

I personally don't carry; I have on occasion, but in my job, it's tough because of rules about when/where, so I find it simpler to just not do it. But living in AK, I saw it daily. At the grocery store, diner, COOP, gas station, shoe store... at any given time, you might be able to spot 10 or more folks carrying if you looked. Where I'm at now, you don't see it as much, but I walked into a gas station the other day, and the lady behind the counter had a pistol on her hip. I asked her if she had a permit for it, and she told me she did so she could carry concealed, but that open carry doesn't require a permit. So it's not super strange for me to see it.

[Teddy B 17,252]



Actually, he brought up three valid items that don't make sense with the concept of the idea:

Those items will be HARD to overcome, IMHO.

I personally don't carry; I have on occasion, but in my job, it's tough because of rules about when/where, so I find it simpler to just not do it. But living in AK, I saw it daily. At the grocery store, diner, COOP, gas station, shoe store... at any given time, you might be able to spot 10 or more folks carrying if you looked. Where I'm at now, you don't see it as much, but I walked into a gas station the other day, and the lady behind the counter had a pistol on her hip. I asked her if she had a permit for it, and she told me she did so she could carry concealed, but that open carry doesn't require a permit. So it's not super strange for me to see it.

He brought up 3 valid items as to why the idea isn't practical at this time. Those are not valid items to back his accusation that the idea of smart guns as stupid. I asked for clarity on that several times to no avail.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't think there was anything in the constitution outlining racial segregation. There's something there about the right to bear arms. That said, I understand the gist of what you meant, that attitudes change over time. I think trying to win the battle in the courts will always be a losing effort since the 2nd amendment is there. Seems the only way would be to get another amendment to the constitution, which would never pass in today's climate. Maybe down the road though. That would settle it once and for all.

They did get an amendment through to outlaw alcohol. Which today would be impossible. So it seems what you say is possible. What to do with the 300+ million guns in circulation is another matter as well. You can only drink a beer once, but you can kill multiple people with the same gun for hundreds of years.

It matters less how many guns are out there. What matters more is that the percentage of the population that owns guns is in continuous decline. Only about a third of US households owns guns. That means a two thirds majority does not own guns. A generation or two ago, it was closer to 50/50. That's the long term trend. Sanity will prevail.

[lostinblue 1,989]

I don't think there was anything in the constitution outlining racial segregation. There's something there about the right to bear arms. That said, I understand the gist of what you meant, that attitudes change over time. I think trying to win the battle in the courts will always be a losing effort since the 2nd amendment is there. Seems the only way would be to get another amendment to the constitution, which would never pass in today's climate. Maybe down the road though. That would settle it once and for all.

They did get an amendment through to outlaw alcohol. Which today would be impossible. So it seems what you say is possible. What to do with the 300+ million guns in circulation is another matter as well. You can only drink a beer once, but you can kill multiple people with the same gun for hundreds of years.

You can protect yourself for generations with the same guns ,

[lostinblue 1,989]

It matters less how many guns are out there. What matters more is that the percentage of the population that owns guns is in continuous decline. Only about a third of US households owns guns. That means a two thirds majority does not own guns. A generation or two ago, it was closer to 50/50. That's the long term trend. Sanity will prevail.

no one really knows how many are out there.....Why should a person tell a pollster they own a gun? Not in today's climate. In conn. they cannot get 10 percent to register their ar15's......Gun ownership is a lot higher than you think or anyone will tell you.

[Karee 4,190]

You can protect yourself for generations with the same guns ,

Protect yourself form what? Other people with guns?

Edited February 21, 2014 by Karee

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

no one really knows how many are out there.....Why should a person tell a pollster they own a gun? Not in today's climate. In conn. they cannot get 10 percent to register their ar15's......Gun ownership is a lot higher than you think or anyone will tell you.

They've done the survey for decades and the trend is clear: fewer households own guns. I know it goes against everything you want to believe but it's still the way it is.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

They've done the survey for decades and the trend is clear: fewer households own guns. I know it goes against everything you want to believe but it's still the way it is.

Sip on that koolaid if it makes you happy. But I seriously doubt it's true. There are people out there who will buy only unregistered guns, for the very purpose of keeping the government outta thier business. No way ANY poll is gonna collect that data. Not saying that the trend is wrong (downward), but saying it is probably VERY inaccurate. Perhaps there are less households buying REGISTERED guns. But do you think many criminals buy registered guns? No. They steal or buy on the down low. Steal all 4 guns a legal, registered gun owner has, and he will probably take steps to ensure they are no longer registered to him. So the # of households goes down by one. But now there are potentially 4 new criminal "households" with guns, and no one will account for that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sip on that koolaid if it makes you happy. But I seriously doubt it's true. There are people out there who will buy only unregistered guns, for the very purpose of keeping the government outta thier business. No way ANY poll is gonna collect that data. Not saying that the trend is wrong (downward), but saying it is probably VERY inaccurate. Perhaps there are less households buying REGISTERED guns. But do you think many criminals buy registered guns? No. They steal or buy on the down low. Steal all 4 guns a legal, registered gun owner has, and he will probably take steps to ensure they are no longer registered to him. So the # of households goes down by one. But now there are potentially 4 new criminal "households" with guns, and no one will account for that.

There's a difference between what one believes and what the available evidence points to. The available evidence points to gun ownership rates declining for decades. Along with homicide rates, by the way. What a surprise, eh?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The law as it's written and the current technology are both impractical. The smart gun concept itself is genius.

So after 10 pages you admit it's a dumb law And the technology does not work, not oddly you accused everyone who disagrees with you on the first pages of not being able to read

What I hear hear is people that admit they know nothing about guns or nothing about us telling us what is best for us.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Sip on that koolaid if it makes you happy. But I seriously doubt it's true. There are people out there who will buy only unregistered guns, for the very purpose of keeping the government outta thier business. No way ANY poll is gonna collect that data. Not saying that the trend is wrong (downward), but saying it is probably VERY inaccurate. Perhaps there are less households buying REGISTERED guns. But do you think many criminals buy registered guns? No. They steal or buy on the down low. Steal all 4 guns a legal, registered gun owner has, and he will probably take steps to ensure they are no longer registered to him. So the # of households goes down by one. But now there are potentially 4 new criminal "households" with guns, and no one will account for that.

The pill he quota is a voluntary poll most gun owners are not going to tell someone over the phone they have guns. More engineered stats by the radical left.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A condition for getting a gun licence should be being shot in the leg.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

There's a difference between what one believes and what the available evidence points to. The available evidence points to gun ownership rates declining for decades. Along with homicide rates, by the way. What a surprise, eh?

I don't know about ownership rates, but guns are flying off the shelves at a record pace. So if gun sales are up, and only existing gun owners are buying guns, and the homicide rate is down, I conclude that now only responsible people own guns, the riff-raff is being weeded out.

[GandD 5,966]

Look, the gun guys bring up good points. Nothing that can't be overcome. You guys gotta ask yourself, are you raising valid points or fighting to maintain the status quo? Every new idea, whether it turns out to be good or bad, meets resistance.

Edited February 21, 2014 by GandD

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

There's a difference between what one believes and what the available evidence points to. The available evidence points to gun ownership rates declining for decades. Along with homicide rates, by the way. What a surprise, eh?

No surprise at all. People who kill people tend to end up in jail, sometimes for life. Tends to set an example for others. I still say the trend in numbers of households that have guns is in no way accurate. But if it helps someone sleep better at night, good deal.