How the NRA works to preserve our RKBA

[foszoe]

Gun companies in fear of NRA unlikely to help Obama?s cause | US news | The Guardian

 

[Kutnupe14]

If the tech was available, would anybody oppose being able to customize a firearm so it could only be used by whomever the owner programmed it to allow? Idk, bioscans or something? Seems like could be kinda cool to have weapons only your family could use.

 

[Spear Dane]

If the tech was available, would anybody oppose being able to customize a firearm so it could only be used by whomever the owner programmed it to allow? Idk, bioscans or something? Seems like could be kinda cool to have weapons only your family could use.

On its face, looks good. In reality, any such thing is liable to come with a government mandated 'back door' that will allow them to freeze the owner out of his own gun.

 

[Kutnupe14]

On its face, looks good. In reality, any such thing is liable to come with a government mandated 'back door' that will allow them to freeze the owner out of his own gun.

Which would be unacceptable. The bioscan would be controlled at the whim of the owner, and if whatever system that controlled it, were rendered inert, the firearm would work normally for anybody.

 

[SSGSAD]

If the tech was available, would anybody oppose being able to customize a firearm so it could only be used by whomever the owner programmed it to allow? Idk, bioscans or something? Seems like could be kinda cool to have weapons only your family could use.

I would, because if it fails, then you are dead .....

Would you carry such tech on the job ?????

 

[singlesix]

If the tech was available, would anybody oppose being able to customize a firearm so it could only be used by whomever the owner programmed it to allow? Idk, bioscans or something? Seems like could be kinda cool to have weapons only your family could use.

&**&^^ NO, the tech is not reliable enough, last thing I need is another piece of equipment that requires power of some sort. I'll adopt the same tech as the Secret Service use on their guns. This isn't Logan's Run (for those old enough to remember).

 

[foszoe]

I don't mind options. I don't like mandates. So I am not against the so called smart gun. For an EDC I can see benefits and drawbacks. The main benefit I can see is an inability to be used by someone you do not think can be trusted. The main drawback is it may not be used by someone you think can be trusted.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I would, because if it fails, then you are dead .....

Would you carry such tech on the job ?????

As I clarified above, yes, without a doubt. If the tech fails, the weapon reverts to condition in which anybody could use it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't mind options. I don't like mandates. So I am not against the so called smart gun. For an EDC I can see benefits and drawbacks. The main benefit I can see is an inability to be used by someone you do not think can be trusted. The main drawback is it may not be used by someone you think can be trusted.

I think it is far more likely a bad guy will kill you with your own gun, than a good guy (who isn't carrying) picking up your gun and saving your butt.

 

[mikebol]

My concerns with this ...

Any firearm with this "technology" is going to require power of some kind. Do I now need to keep my gun charged? Does that mean it sits on the nightstand in plain view along with my cell phone and clock radio? This whole thing sounds good on the surface but is just impractical when implemented.

How many users can I enable my gun to respond to? For example, suppose that my MIL is house sitting while we're away on vacation and I cannot take my gun with me. I suppose I'd have to program the gun for her access should she need it. Alternatively, she'd have to bring her own gun. Not a big deal but more of an annoyance.

What if the technology fails? What if there is a delay in "enabling" the gun? If I have an active shooter coming at me, I'm not going to have the presence of mind to carefully place my finger prints or whatever where needed to make it go bang, I have a split second to react.

If these tech guns were universally implemented, black market guns would surface and not just the ones we know today but homemade, DIY devices. It wouldn't be terribly hard to mill a "working" device that could fire a round.

Finally, what will all of this technology do to the price of these guns? It would seem this technology would increase the price and put an alleged "safe" gun out of reach for the common home defense buyer.

Mike

 

[mikebol]

If the tech fails, the weapon reverts to condition in which anybody could use it.

I think it is far more likely a bad guy will kill you with your own gun, than a good guy (who isn't carrying) picking up your gun and saving your butt

Tell me then, how does this help? If the tech fails and anyone can use the gun, how does the gun know that the bad guy picked it up rather than a good guy trying to save my butt?

Mike

 

[Kutnupe14]

Tell me then, how does this help? If the tech fails and anyone can use the gun, how does the gun know that the bad guy picked it up rather than a good guy trying to save my butt?

Mike

Not sure if srs, or missing the big picture.

 

[spec4]

Does anybody think that if this technology became widespread that it would be the end of liberals trying to disarm us?

 

[Kutnupe14]

My concerns with this ...

Any firearm with this "technology" is going to require power of some kind. Do I now need to keep my gun charged? Does that mean it sits on the nightstand in plain view along with my cell phone and clock radio? This whole thing sounds good on the surface but is just impractical when implemented.

How many users can I enable my gun to respond to? For example, suppose that my MIL is house sitting while we're away on vacation and I cannot take my gun with me. I suppose I'd have to program the gun for her access should she need it. Alternatively, she'd have to bring her own gun. Not a big deal but more of an annoyance.

What if the technology fails? What if there is a delay in "enabling" the gun? If I have an active shooter coming at me, I'm not going to have the presence of mind to carefully place my finger prints or whatever where needed to make it go bang, I have a split second to react.

If these tech guns were universally implemented, black market guns would surface and not just the ones we know today but homemade, DIY devices. It wouldn't be terribly hard to mill a "working" device that could fire a round.

Finally, what will all of this technology do to the price of these guns? It would seem this technology would increase the price and put an alleged "safe" gun out of reach for the common home defense buyer.

Mike

Geez, fine here's the pitch.
"Nuclear-powered, non-radiation, bio-signature gun! Will last 1000 years from power source. Bio-engineered, so that any proximity of less than one inch, and the gun will fire, for approved users. Customizable, so that up to 500 friends and family can use with inputted bio-signatures, in as little as 2 minutes! And if your power source should ever fail, gun immediately reverts to a standard firearm, with no delay.

NOW, if that tech were available, would you be interested?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Any of my fellow older gun nuts remember this nonsense from the 1960s? The Magna Technology with the coded rings? Police Departments across the land were very quick to . . . reject it out of hand.

If Obama thinks this is such a brilliant idea, why not a EA for the United States Secret Service, especially all those clustered around Kenwood, to adapt this technology?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Any of my fellow older gun nuts remember this nonsense from the 1960s? The Magna Technology with the coded rings? Police Departments across the land were very quick to . . . reject it out of hand.

If Obama thinks this is such a brilliant idea, why not a EA for the United States Secret Service, especially all those clustered around Kenwood, to adapt this technology?

The question I'm asking, is "if" the tech were available and reliable, to make some sort of attachment to a person/firearm, to prevent it from being used by anyone but the owner, and whomever else he blesses, why wouldn't people be interested in it?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Because I'm betting, that's eventually where we end up.

 

[mikebol]

Geez, fine here's the pitch.
"Nuclear-powered, non-radiation, bio-signature gun! Will last 1000 years from power source. Bio-engineered, so that any proximity of less than one inch, and the gun will fire, for approved users. Customizable, so that up to 500 friends and family can use with inputted bio-signatures, in as little as 2 minutes! And if your power source should ever fail, gun immediately reverts to a standard firearm, with no delay.

NOW, if that tech were available, would you be interested?

Wow, Kut - I was trying to share what I find serious concerns and perhaps what others may find concerning as well. No need for that kind of reply.

If the tech was available, would anybody oppose being able to customize a firearm so it could only be used by whomever the owner programmed it to allow?

I'll keep it simple from here on out. With regards to technology adapted to my personal protection firearm, I will NOT be on the cutting edge to any such device that could put my life or the lives of my family in jeopardy. Ask me in 5 years once this technology is proven effective.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wow, Kut - I was trying to share what I find serious concerns and perhaps what others may find concerning as well. No need for that kind of reply.



I'll keep it simple from here on out. With regards to technology adapted to my personal protection firearm, I will NOT be on the cutting edge to any such device that could put my life or the lives of my family in jeopardy. Ask me in 5 years once this technology is proven effective.

Oh don't take it the wrong way, I figured I had to put something out there ridiculous to see what one would be ok with. I'm sorry if I offended.
The tech doesn't exist, and it won't exist in 5 or 10 years. I'm wondering if tech was available, why wouldn't anyone want it.

 

[mikebol]

Understood, Kut. Not offended at all.

Given that the device would be ready to fire at the immediate instant I laid hands on it.
Given that the device would have ample battery power to maintain said authentication function.
Given that the device would have the ability to store a reasonable number of identities.
Given that the device would have no other "back door" authentication or disabling capabilities.
Given that the device cost would not be excessively effected.

Sure, I'd use one.

There are in fact a few pros to this type of technology - Theft deterrent, inability for a stranger to use the weapon against me, inability for a child to cause an AD, inability for an AD caused by an outside device (think walking through brush when hunting), etc.

Mike