Smart Gun Debate.

when I woke up this morning the TV news was all about this gun store owner who'd been threatened for wanting to sell a smart gun in his store. Here's a thing from the LA times.

That gun being the new Armatix iP1 “smartgun,”

for those who don't know it's a little 10 round .22 LR caliber pocket gun that will not fire unless you wear the watch that releases the safety. no watch the gun will not fire. Why they call it a smart gun.

Apparently people think this so called smart gun endangers all other guns. They think if we allow the sale of this toy and yes I used the word "Toy" then it will make all our older not smart guns illegal.

Anyway I thought this was a subject we should hash out talk over.

For me I always want really cool new guns--- But not this one--- and not for what it represents--- I simply don't need another .22LR but if I did I would want one of a better quality.

As for a self defense weapon I certainly don't want a .22

and I don't like the added step of having to put on a watch before this toy will fire.

Yes I can see the merits of the design from a gun retention standpoint. But being leashed to that single battery powered watch? I have my doubts and when in doubt, I'd buy something else.

Well that's my thoughts... what do you say?

Agreed.
I would not trust my life to a .22 pistol to begin with, if I had a choice.
I am damn sure not going to point and hope that the battery is good.... or that the watch/pistol interface is going to function.

a reply to: butcherguy

If I was making or selling this thing I would loved it= as for a two parent family like mine--- I would be able to sell two guns. one the wife and another for the husband... color coordinated as his and hers of course.

I mean how else would my darling wife protect herself from--- ne'er do wells--- if I wore the watch to work that day.

works on a marking standpoint---- but not on the fewer guns on the street principle.

a reply to: HardCorps
Thanks for your post. I can understand why the gun store owner is getting all the bad feedback from the state. California gun laws make any gun with a magazine of more than eight rounds illegal... The Armatix .22 LR "Pocket Gun" would probably fare much better in states like Colorado which has more relaxed gun laws. Also, the fact that the handgun in question is a "pocket gun" even further hampers any chance of being sold in California as that state does not issue CC permits to any but LEOs and in other, "special circumstances." California's harsh and restrictive gun laws are why I moved from that state where I was born and bred to Arizona.

Besides, .22 caliber handguns are really useless when it comes to self or home defense; they're really only good for the range and target practice and the safety features are not a positive thing in that event. I will take my Ruger SR9c 9mm any day but I just have no use for a .22 handgun, with or without exotic safety features.

Let us first start with all law enforcement and see how many lives it will save of police officers.
About half of the officers shot are shot with their own gun!
Then we could move on to test it in the military...
Hey folks...It is all about control of the people and not the government people!
Wake UP!

a reply to: lightseeker

In the article I posted from the LA times they started off the story with four headlines.

"5-Year-Old Boy Accidentally Shoots, Kills Himself"

"Police: 6-year-old accidentally shoots woman in car, kills her"

"5-year-old boy shoots, kills 7-year-old girl at South Carolina birthday party"

"14-year-old boy charged in shooting of 9-year-old brother in Mattapan"

All of those stories involve a child who got a hold of an improperly secured weapon.
Seems to me it would make more sense to pass a gun safe/locker law... than it would to force the industry to redesign the wheel.

FYI--- Despite all our tree huggers and PC correct want-a-be's Colorado is still very much a pro-gun pro-hunting state. Sadly that puts all us pro-gun folks at odds with the media driven anti-gun agenda folks.

originally posted by: waltwillis
Let us first start with all law enforcement and see how many lives it will save of police officers.
About half of the officers shot are shot with their own gun!
Then we could move on to test it in the military...
Hey folks...It is all about control of the people and not the government people!
Wake UP!

Like I said in my OP.
Yes I can see the merits of the design from a gun retention standpoint.

As a realist I am very aware that the more complicated you make a thing, the more there is to go wrong.

My beloved Marine Corps did look at biometrics for their rifles and abandoned the idea just as quickly. The problem is sometimes you do need to allow another person to use your weapon, but now you gotta take off and hand over a watch and they got put it on their wrist... probably while your under fire too ...

yeah it sounds like a good idea... right up until you think about all the problems a smart gun will cause rather than fix.

I have no objections whatsoever to "smart" guns being made available.

I do however have very strong objections against politicians who would see such a product as cause to legislate.

See:

That’s because of a New Jersey law passed in 2002 known as the Childproof Handgun Law, which says that all guns sold in New Jersey must be state-approved smart guns within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. The goal was to make smart guns mandatory as soon as the technology existed. Officially, no smart gun has been sold in the US yet — meaning if Raymond had sold one, it would have triggered the clause in New Jersey.

Link

They can't just leave us alone.

If they want innovation leave us alone. If they want to keep hammering us with regulations and mandates then we'll keep hammering and harassing any company who helps them.

I'm not against any gun, really, but you do have a point with them potentially making all our old guns illegal without this "gimmick". I mean, you give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.


I mean, pretty soon you won't even be able to build a nuclear bomb in your backya.........

Wait, you already can't do that right?

SEE?

Lol, seriously though, the first part of my comment was serious, and without jest.

a reply to: HardCorps

I always thought the guy/gal behind the trigger was the "smart" part of the firearm...?

I do not like this at all.

A .22? I prefer something that makes a bit larger hole, should the unthinkable ever occur. If I ever have to shoot someone, I don't want them getting up. Ever.

Man, that makes me sound blood thirsty...

a reply to: HardCorps

What I don't get, is why make it .22LR? Have they not noticed how sparse/expensive .22 ammo is these days?
In all seriousness, this looks like a gimmick. I wouldn't expect it to last.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Lets play devils advocate.

If someone made a palm print reader I could install as a replacement grip for my SIG 229... something that would only allow me and my wife to shoot it...Yes I would buy it...

But when the government tells me I have to get one--- not gonna happen---

a reply to: seagull

Man, that makes me sound blood thirsty...

Nah.
Makes you sound like you have better odds of survival.

a reply to: seagull

Your not being blood thirsty... your being intelligent...

I can deal with a dead bad guy in my living room--- easier than I can a wounded one in jail cell with a good shyster lawyer who's gonna sue me for everything I got!

originally posted by: HardCorps
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Lets play devils advocate.

If someone made a palm print reader I could install as a replacement grip for my SIG 229... something that would only allow me and my wife to shoot it...Yes I would buy it...

But when the government tells me I have to get one--- not gonna happen---

Not me.
I would rather have only a piece of metal between the trigger and sear. Nothing more to fail or go wrong, please.

a reply to: butcherguy

My SIG is my daily carry... yeah I have a CCW.

Not that they make a palm print reader kind of gizmo ---but since we have two young girls in the house... Yeah I would think about getting that extra layer of safety...

My girls have been taught the rules of gun safety and we're good about keeping the firearms in the gun-safe... But being girls they do invite a lot of their friends over who may not have had such lessons.

originally posted by: HardCorps
a reply to: lightseeker

In the article I posted from the LA times they started off the story with four headlines.

"5-Year-Old Boy Accidentally Shoots, Kills Himself"

"Police: 6-year-old accidentally shoots woman in car, kills her"

"5-year-old boy shoots, kills 7-year-old girl at South Carolina birthday party"

"14-year-old boy charged in shooting of 9-year-old brother in Mattapan"

All of those stories involve a child who got a hold of an improperly secured weapon.
Seems to me it would make more sense to pass a gun safe/locker law... than it would to force the industry to redesign the wheel.

FYI--- Despite all our tree huggers and PC correct want-a-be's Colorado is still very much a pro-gun pro-hunting state. Sadly that puts all us pro-gun folks at odds with the media driven anti-gun agenda folks.

I think you have it right. I have been mislabeled as anti-gun by many people, oddly enough, I think if you have the money of a bill gates, you should be able to buy your own fully armed f-18 or a-10 or whatever (conventional only).
BUT.
YOU are responsible for that weapon and if it falls into the hands of your child. You will face manslaughter charges if someone is killed or worse for a mass spree. If you can afford the gun, you can afford trigger locks, a safe, whatever, and make it known that weapon is for your (and this you feel safe letting) use.
Full sentencing.

I also think if you are caught using a firearm with a crime. At least five years. Get rid of the petty drug offenses and you'll have plenty of room. I was held up more than once and had more than enough guns pulled on me, but I'm not a cowboy, never felt the need to be armed unless in the woods, then a blade and ax for predators. And unless someone is just a killer, they really dont want to pull that trigger either.

The thing in your post is just marketing, HC. Catering to the suburban dad whose garage beer fridge was broke into and feels violated.

originally posted by: HardCorps

originally posted by: waltwillis
Let us first start with all law enforcement and see how many lives it will save of police officers.
About half of the officers shot are shot with their own gun!
Then we could move on to test it in the military...
Hey folks...It is all about control of the people and not the government people!
Wake UP!

Like I said in my OP.
Yes I can see the merits of the design from a gun retention standpoint.

As a realist I am very aware that the more complicated you make a thing, the more there is to go wrong.

My beloved Marine Corps did look at biometrics for their rifles and abandoned the idea just as quickly. The problem is sometimes you do need to allow another person to use your weapon, but now you gotta take off and hand over a watch and they got put it on their wrist... probably while your under fire too ...

yeah it sounds like a good idea... right up until you think about all the problems a smart gun will cause rather than fix.

If they can make a usb cable that can tap into any computer and transmit data without a web connection, im sure they could work the kinks out.

Perhaps all soldiers in one region have the same smart code for their weapons in case one needs to use another's. Just a precaution in case it ends up in enemy hands...but all of the good guys could fire. I dont know. War is a hell I wish never to know. The more complicated anything becomes, the more problems arise.

a reply to: the owlbear

All very good points--- I'd give you 10 stars if I could.

garage beer fridge was broke into and feels violated

They can have all that crappy 'Keystone' my brother-in-law gave me but if they even look at my Sam Adams--- There'll be some hot lead flying then buddy! LOL

As I commented in the last thread about this, I can only technology like this becomes the standard. As an alternative technology, let me use the same example:

Imagine all guns digitally storing data about its usage (like Exif). A crime investigation could involve requisitioning this data based on the location of an incident, drastically reducing variables.

And of course the argument against this is, "What about our constitutional rights?" The only other argument for anti-gun control is personal safety. A system like this wouldn't affect anyone's access to or rights to use their firearms. Sure you can argue that your privacy is being violated, but what privacy? Why didn't you want anyone to know you were firing your gun?