First ‘smart’ pistol hits shelves in California

Too much faffing about...if they worked on palm or fingerprint

That always seemed like the logical path. Although I keep having visions of the store checked scanner problem and someone waiting for the pistol to beep so they can shoot.

But I don't even like trigger locks....

This is just another stupid move to accomplish nothing but potentially getting the owner killed. What's next voice recognition?

I will say this... If it is going to be tested for popularity in an unfriendly gun state CA is a good choice due to the demographics and population.

Metallicus
The 'smart' gun that is a stupid idea.

If they want to make people safer they should disarm cops, not force this crap on law-abiding citizens. I would never own one of these ridiculous weapons.

Make the police use these. Might save quite a few lives.

It might keep some kids alive that would shoot themselve or a sibling if they found it in the house.. provided they dont know the pin code..

Sheer jackassery... Precisely the kind of stupidity that Kalifornia deserves...

I'll tell you what, how about we switch the CHP, all the Sheriff' Offices and all municipal and city police departments over to this technology? No exceptions... All weapons regardless of unit (that means you HRT & SWAT) must have this technology, BUG's too. And let's go a step further, just to be fair...Any Federal agency operating in Kalifornia must also adopt this tech,,, Exclusively... And the nail in the coffin, any elected official, appointee, or employee of the state who carry concealed, or have weapons at home, those too must use this technology... Exclusively... Lead by example you jack booted Marxist thugs!

Needless to say, if such an imposition was made, this technology would be legislated into oblivion...

reply to post by Expat888


Or people could not push ignorance as a viable alternative to education when it comes to children and guns.

But that's not PC so I guess it's broken $1,800 guns for everyone.

So this will be 'hacked' in a matter of days. Any company dumb enough to market a freaking .22 in this way surely hasn't spent the coin.

Next thing we hear is that 'smart guns' aren't reliable and all other options have been exhausted. Gun manufacturers (that I've never heard of) tried, but we're unable to make a 'safe' handgun. All handguns should now be banned.


The gun + the watch = $1,798 (before tax). For a .22. For a .22. FOR A .22. For a .22 that hasn't been proven, and one that you have to wear a watch with. Keep it. On a summer day I have a .38 in my pocket. The colder it gets, the bigger the Glock frame. Baby, 19, 17. Who carries a .22? Tinkerbell? Yeah you can kill a guy with paintball gun, but why waste the money on a pain in the ass?



I HATE wearing a watch. I kinda dig watches, but I can't wear them. The longest I've worn a watch was 2 weeks. Can't stand it. If I ever get married I'll be amazed if I can wear a wedding band for more than a day.

reply to post by network dude


It's not about having a gun, its about having a gun that TPTB can deactivate at the touch of a button, regardless of whether or not you may like to use it.

they have the idiots right where they want.

"You can have guns, but we can deactivate at will"

reply to post by Domo1


You don't have to wear a wedding band, neither my husband nor I wear any... I can handle telling people "No I am married" just fine, dont need a ring to do it, and sometimes that ring makes people more interested...lol

This specific gun was originally supposed to be with a finger-print identifier rather than a wristwatch...which might have been a better idea. All in all this is not such a bad idea for those who want to keep the anti-gun movement at Bay because it makes gun use more secure.

OpinionatedB
reply to post by network dude

 

It's not about having a gun, its about having a gun that TPTB can deactivate at the touch of a button, regardless of whether or not you may like to use it.

they have the idiots right where they want.

"You can have guns, but we can deactivate at will"

edit on 21-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

I feel pretty stupid for not even considering that side of it.

Thanks (not for making me feel stupid, that was all me)

Skyfloating
All in all this is not such a bad idea for those who want to keep the anti-gun movement at Bay because it makes gun use more secure.

Wha? Really?

That's how it works?

Head, meet sand...

reply to post by MysterX


That side of it is classified, you aren't supposed to know... you don't know... how was american idol? You need to be safe...



Sorry for making you feel stupid, that was my only thought. They are so afraid of us rising up against them, and are so busy trying to completely solidify their power, that these coming out is no surprise really, was only a matter of time.

thisguyrighthere

network dude

An $1800 plinker. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a gun to shoot on the cheap.

Anything to keep the undesirables from arming themselves.

Ban so-called "Saturday Night Specials" (inexpensive guns), institute a permitting system that along with mandatory training equates to a months pay or more, mandate useless bells and whistles like we see here.....

If it helps keep the poor classes from obtaining firearms it's a solid plan.

And allow a government "kill switch" in the form of a small scale EMP gun; which would knock out both units and render all weapons against them useless.

- More Expensive = win for Government control
- Easy to disable from a distance= win for Government control

Is would be good for those who have guns for the sole purpose of hunting, or for self defense against a burglar but would hinder you ability to defend against government tyranny. But this technology has not been modified for hunting rifles.

reply to post by network dude


Death by bluetooth...

OptimusSubprime

thisguyrighthere

network dude

An $1800 plinker. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a gun to shoot on the cheap.

Anything to keep the undesirables from arming themselves.

Ban so-called "Saturday Night Specials" (inexpensive guns), institute a permitting system that along with mandatory training equates to a months pay or more, mandate useless bells and whistles like we see here.....

If it helps keep the poor classes from obtaining firearms it's a solid plan.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED are you having trouble understanding?

I think he was being sarcastic.

Mirthful Me


Head, meet sand...

OK, after reading your post above, I see your point...to the point of taking back mine.

Skyfloating
This specific gun was originally supposed to be with a finger-print identifier rather than a wristwatch...which might have been a better idea. All in all this is not such a bad idea for those who want to keep the anti-gun movement at Bay because it makes gun use more secure.

It makes the gun user less secure. As posted many times above there are many flaws in this. More expensive, prices it out of hands of many citizens. Depends on electric technology that is not as dependable as regular guns: batteries die, codes are forgotten, circuits wear out, data is lost or corrupted. I can put my 45 in the safe, leave it there for decades, and it will shoot just as well as the day it was made.

This is impractical for self defense--you must have the watch, the watch must be working, not jammed or interference present. You cannot pass it to your heirs without the watch and the codes and if you pass away before sharing those, it is useless for them.

Notice that every politician who has proposed making "smart guns" mandatory has exempted police and other government official s from the proposal. Why? Because all of the issues I explained above. They don't care if your gun doesn't work as long as their guns work. This is about controlling the people, plain and simple.

Let's try and look past the particulars here and find something positive...the direction this type of idea COULD go is pretty cool. That direction as I see it is a weapon that can be fired by only the owner or whoever the owner "adds" ... who can argue with that? I see this as as phase1 of what's to come.

Of course the watch part is the big drawback here...maybe a small implant in the palm? Voice recognition? ... no, this put an image os the iGun in my head! "Siri, put a cap in this mo-fo!" -- "Sorry, I didn't get that."

All kidding aside, this could turn into something interesting IMO. And, like bad Hollywood re-makes, if you don't like it just stick with the old version!

Emulating the encryption keys would be far beyond the capabilities of most people to the point of it not being worth it.

Personaly I like this idea if my gun is stolen it is rendered useless or in the event of a confrontation I cannot be easily disarmed and have my firearm turned against me. That sort of thing is important to me. I wish they would have employed subdermal RFID for the encryption but still, its a step in the right direction as far as I am concerned.