"Smart Guns"

[buggyone]

I saw the following on FoxNews website:

"A Maryland firearms shop owner is backing away from plans to sell a smart gun after backlash from gun rights advocates who fear the technology in the high-tech firearm will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights.

Andy Raymond, owner of Rockville gun store Engage Armament, told The Washington Post he is backing down from selling the gun after word about his plan was spread online by gun rights blogs. He said he even received a death threat."

It seems that gun nuts are terrorizing gun store owners for attempting to sell pistols that can be fired only if the user is wearing a device to allow firing. This is amazing that zealots can actually be loony enough to be against gun safety. What can be said?

[Bogie Shooter]

Would that work in a Georgia bar?

[CFrance]

Would that work in a Gerogia bar?
Explain, please.

[Indydealmaker]

I saw the following on FoxNews website:

"A Maryland firearms shop owner is backing away from plans to sell a smart gun after backlash from gun rights advocates who fear the technology in the high-tech firearm will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights.

Andy Raymond, owner of Rockville gun store Engage Armament, told The Washington Post he is backing down from selling the gun after word about his plan was spread online by gun rights blogs. He said he even received a death threat."

It seems that gun nuts are terrorizing gun store owners for attempting to sell pistols that can be fired only if the user is wearing a device to allow firing. This is amazing that zealots can actually be loony enough to be against gun safety. What can be said?

One important point to remember: Any gun that can be immobilized remotely can be hacked by others including your government.

Within 60 days after such a smart gun hits the market, you will be able to download a hack from the internet. Hundreds of millions spent and nothing accomplished.

The pressure on the gun shop owner was due to the fact that New Jersey had passed a law that required ALL gun owners to use such smart gun technology within 90 days after it became available. This is in violation of the 2nd ammendment. If you can't afford it, you lose your guns and your right to protect yourself.

These gun laws are not about safety. It is about taking away your rights.

The only people who will be controlled by these anti gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to get guns. No form of prohibition has ever worked in this country...not drugs, not alcohol, not speeding, not running red lights, not common courtesy. None.

[buggyone]

Would that work in a Gerogia bar?

Would what work in a Gerogia bar - and what is a Gerogia bar?

[buggyone]

One important point to remember: Any gun that can be immobilized remotely can be hacked by others including your government.

Within 60 days after such a smart gun hits the market, you will be able to download a hack from the internet. Hundreds of millions spent and nothing accomplished.

The pressure on the gun shop owner was due to the fact that New Jersey had passed a law that required ALL gun owners to use such smart gun technology within 90 days after it became available. This is in violation of the 2nd ammendment. If you can't afford it, you lose your guns and your right to protect yourself.

These gun laws are not about safety. It is about taking away your rights.

The only people who will be controlled by these anti gun laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to get guns. No form of prohibition has ever worked in this country...not drugs, not alcohol, not speeding, not running red lights, not common courtesy. None.

No, it is about SAFETY. Just think of the large number of children who take a gun to school just to show it off; think of the children who find a parent's gun and shoot one of their friends as a game; think of a burglar stealing your pistol. Without the safety device, the guns are useless and deaths are prevented.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that safety devices cannot be placed on guns. No one is taking guns away from you. If a person can afford a gun, they can afford a safety device so that arguement is out the window.

It is all about SAFETY.

Do you agree that the store owner should have been threatened with having his store burned down and with his life being threatened?

[CFrance]

No, it is about SAFETY. Just think of the large number of children who take a gun to school just to show it off; think of the children who find a parent's gun and shoot one of their friends as a game; think of a burglar stealing your pistol. Without the safety device, the guns are useless and deaths are prevented.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that safety devices cannot be placed on guns. No one is taking guns away from you. If a person can afford a gun, they can afford a safety device so that arguement is out the window.

It is all about SAFETY.

Do you agree that the store owner should have been threatened with having his store burned down and with his life being threatened?

Well said.

Also... It's only the people who don't give a rip about traffic safety or laws who disregard the speed limits and stop signs and the like. So we should not have those laws because those prone to breaking the law are not going to follow them anyway?

[blueash]

The pressure on the gun shop owner was due to the fact that New Jersey had passed a law that required ALL gun owners to use such smart gun technology within 90 days after it became available. This is in violation of the 2nd ammendment. If you can't afford it, you lose your guns and your right to protect yourself.

Your information is incorrect. If you are unable to find accurate information on the NRA website, you may want to try here:

P.L.2002, c.130 (S573 2R SCS) (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM)

This law passed in 2002 requires that 3 YEARS, not 90 days, after the availability of a smart gun in the US, that all NEW guns sold in NJ be smart guns. There is absolutely nothing in the law about all gun owners having to convert their already owned guns to smart guns. There is nothing about the gubment comin to git you guns if you can't afford it.

I will leave it to the courts to decide if this is a violation of the 2nd amendment rather than rely on the constitutional experts available on this forum.

[wendyquat]

No, it is about SAFETY. Just think of the large number of children who take a gun to school just to show it off; think of the children who find a parent's gun and shoot one of their friends as a game; think of a burglar stealing your pistol. Without the safety device, the guns are useless and deaths are prevented.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that safety devices cannot be placed on guns. No one is taking guns away from you. If a person can afford a gun, they can afford a safety device so that arguement is out the window.

It is all about SAFETY.

Do you agree that the store owner should have been threatened with having his store burned down and with his life being threatened?

You neglect to mention how many lives have been saved by guns! Without taking the time to do a lot of research I'm confident it far outnumbers that of lives lost!

[CFrance]

You neglect to mention how many lives have been saved by guns! Without taking the time to do a lot of research I'm confident it far outnumbers that of lives lost!

Boy howdy. I can't even imagine that is the case. (Wars excluded, since those same war guns take lives.)

[Carl in Tampa]

There are multiple reasons to oppose the misnamed "smart guns."

1. Unreliability. There are several different proposed methods of making firearms incapable of firing unless certain conditions are met; usually having to do with the use of magnetic rings, bracelets emitting law powered radio waves, or biometric sensors in the gun determining whether or not the holder is an authorized user.

None of these methods is foolproof and each carries the hazard that the firearm will fail to fire when needed in an emergency.

2. Defeatable. Virtually any technology that is created by a man can be defeated by another man. Locksmiths can defeat locks. Smart gun technologists can defeat smart guns.

3. Ineffectual. Most owners are likely to store the safety device with the firearm, so if one is stolen then both will be stolen.

4. Duplication. Florida law already requires that firearms be properly stored, both in homes and in cars, to prevent their possession by children.

5. Political. It is clearly demonstrable that the real reason for the government pushing of "smart gun" technology is to facilitate the seizure of firearms.

Some states have already passed laws that mandate that as soon as smart guns are offered on the retail market in their states then guns without this technology can no longer be sold. This means that all "regular" firearms in the state will eventually become contraband, effectively making them subject to seizure.

There are also proposals that although the firearms themselves might not be registered, the "safety devices" (rings, bracelets, etc.) will be registered. This effectively tells the government which citizens are gun owners, possibly facilitating future firearms confiscation......or confiscation of the safety devices, rendering the firearms useless.

--------------

What about:

1. Criminals? There will always be criminals. There are no laws that can be passed that will prevent people from committing crimes. Catch them and punish them.

2. Children? In addition to the laws that require proper storage of firearms to keep them out of the hands of children, there should be gun safety programs offered in the public schools.

For decades Ft. Homer W. Hesterly, the Florida National Guard Headquarters in Tampa, had an indoor gun range where organized target shooting by Boy Scouts was permitted.

The university I attended in Florida had an ROTC program where students were trained in firearms handling with the same rifles that were being used by U.S. Army personnel.

The NRA has a firearms safety program directed toward elementary school age children teaching them that if they encounter a firearm they should not touch it and should call an adult.

No program is perfect, but the efforts are appropriate. It's a shame that many children are not exposed to this instruction and it is likely that the firearms tragedies that we read about involving children involve children who have not received this training.

.

[CFrance]

There are multiple reasons to oppose the misnamed "smart guns."

1. Unreliability. There are several different proposed methods of making firearms incapable of firing unless certain conditions are met; usually having to do with the use of magnetic rings, bracelets emitting law powered radio waves, or biometric sensors in the gun determining whether or not the holder is an authorized user.

None of these methods is foolproof and each carries the hazard that the firearm will fail to fire when needed in an emergency.

2. Defeatable. Virtually any technology that is created by a man can be defeated by another man. Locksmiths can defeat locks. Smart gun technologists can defeat smart guns.

3. Ineffectual. Most owners are likely to store the safety device with the firearm, so if one is stolen then both will be stolen.

4. Duplication. Florida law already requires that firearms be properly stored, both in homes and in cars, to prevent their possession by children.

5. Political. It is clearly demonstrable that the real reason for the government pushing of "smart gun" technology is to facilitate the seizure of firearms.

Some states have already passed laws that mandate that as soon as smart guns are offered on the retail market in their states then guns without this technology can no longer be sold. This means that all "regular" firearms in the state will eventually become contraband, effectively making them subject to seizure.

There are also proposals that although the firearms themselves might not be registered, the "safety devices" (rings, bracelets, etc.) will be registered. This effectively tells the government which citizens are gun owners, possibly facilitating future firearms confiscation......or confiscation of the safety devices, rendering the firearms useless.

--------------

What about:

1. Criminals? There will always be criminals. There are no laws that can be passed that will prevent people from committing crimes. Catch them and punish them.

2. Children? In addition to the laws that require proper storage of firearms to keep them out of the hands of children, there should be gun safety programs offered in the public schools.

For decades Ft. Homer W. Hesterly, the Florida National Guard Headquarters in Tampa, had an indoor gun range where organized target shooting by Boy Scouts was permitted.

The university I attended in Florida had an ROTC program where students were trained in firearms handling with the same rifles that were being used by U.S. Army personnel.

The NRA has a firearms safety program directed toward elementary school age children teaching them that if they encounter a firearm they should not touch it and should call an adult.

No program is perfect, but the efforts are appropriate. It's a shame that many children are not exposed to this instruction and it is likely that the firearms tragedies that we read about involving children involve children who have not received this training.

.
I guess we shouldn't have instituted the use of air bags either, because of the risks of them harming someone in the passenger seat and the fact that sometimes they fail to operate. Why not just teach people how to drive safely. There are already laws telling people how to drive.

I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

[getdul981]

The issue of safety for children is always a joke to me. When I was a kid, we had guns in the house and I KNEW not to mess with them. If I did I would get my butt kicked most severely. The issue for gun safety for children does not belong to the government. The matter of gun safety falls to the parents. If they can't control their children, they don't need to have guns.

The only reason the government would have to require registration of any kind is so they can have control of what you have or what they can take away from you.

[Carl in Tampa]

I guess we shouldn't have instituted the use of air bags either, because of the risks of them harming someone in the passenger seat and the fact that sometimes they fail to operate. Why not just teach people how to drive safely. There are already laws telling people how to drive.

I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

I would hazard a guess that you have never had to fire a gun to protect your life.

I have.

And there is no "benefit" of having a gun with a gimmick that might fail that outweighs my requirement for a totally reliable defensive firearm.

.

[CFrance]

The issue of safety for children is always a joke to me. When I was a kid, we had guns in the house and I KNEW not to mess with them. If I did I would get my butt kicked most severely. The issue for gun safety for children does not belong to the government. The matter of gun safety falls to the parents. If they can't control their children, they don't need to have guns.

The only reason the government would have to require registration of any kind is so they can have control of what you have or what they can take away from you.

And maybe you were a normal kid with no psychiatric disorders not controllable by parents, or if you had them, the had the to get you treatment. Or maybe you were not a kid whose parents were scraping bottom to put food on the table, unemployed, hooked on drugs, abused as kids, had mental problems of their own... whatever. These gun control issues pertain mainly to the above.

You were one of the lucky ones, raised responsible parents.

[buggyone]

I would hazard a guess that you have never had to fire a gun to protect your life.

I have.

And there is no "benefit" of having a gun with a gimmick that might fail that outweighs my requirement for a totally reliable defensive firearm.

.

I imagine you firing a gun to protect your life was due to your job. I would assume a policeman's gun would be free of constraints as union bargaining would certainly dictate.

Safety is the main reason for smart technology. All the hyperbole posted about technology can be defeated or the government gonna disarm you is hokum.

[Carl in Tampa]

I imagine you firing a gun to protect your life was due to your job. I would assume a policeman's gun would be free of constraints as union bargaining would certainly dictate.

Safety is the main reason for smart technology. All the hyperbole posted about technology can be defeated or the liberals gonna disarm you is hokum.


1. Your assumption is incorrect. The New Jersey law, previously cited, includes a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers.

2. Ordinary citizens who are not police officers use firearms in self defense against criminals every day.

3. I worked for several years for the federal government in various technology fields and I know the technology can be defeated.

4. Even more troubling, I know how the technology can be unreliable and fail in an emergency.

5. There are many organizations and many politicians devoted to the absolute abolition of citizen ownership of firearms. If you don't know this you are abysmally uninformed. They don't keep it a secret.

.

[Bogie Shooter]

Would that work in a Georgia bar?

Explain, please.

Would what work in a Gerogia bar - and what is a Gerogia bar?

Sorry about the typo.
With Georgia passing their " guns anywhere" law...........they will need all the safety help available.

[buggyone]

1. Your assumption is incorrect. The New Jersey law, previously cited, includes a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers.

2. Ordinary citizens who are not police officers use firearms in self defense against criminals every day.

3. I worked for several years for the federal government in various technology fields and I know the technology can be defeated.

4. Even more troubling, I know how the technology can be unreliable and fail in an emergency.

5. There are many organizations and many politicians devoted to the absolute abolition of citizen ownership of firearms. If you don't know this you are abysmally uninformed. They don't keep it a secret.

.

:a20: at this "reasoning". 'Nuff said, next topic please.

[ilovetv]

To me it seems dangerous to an innocent gun owner whose gun might be stolen and hacked into and used to commit murder.

When the gun is admitted as evidence how can an innocent owner prove somebody stole it and hacked into it and that it was somebody else who did it??

Knowing how much damage the Target credit card hacking caused widespread, I'd be very leery of hackers into these guns widespread, leaving law-abiding citizens and police defenseless in a mass attack.

[Taltarzac725]

Sentencing Law and Policy: "Smart Gun Technology Could Have Blocked Adam Lanza" (http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2012/12/smart-gun-technology-could-have-blocked-adam-lanza.html)

I wonder if Adam Lanza's mother would have purchased smart guns when all she really had to do to keep them out of his hands is put gun locks on them?

[waynet]

I support the right of citizens to own firearms,I am an owner myself. But I do detest those people that go overboard with it especially the NRA which I am no longer a member. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to take away. There has been a record surge in firearms production and transactions. Between 2005 and 2013 NFA applications rose by more than 380%. There were 8.5 million guns produced in 2012 alone. In 2011 there were 6.5 million guns produced. This is a dramatic and unprcedented growth in the firearms and ammunition industry. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to try and take. Keep listening to the NRA and the gun manufacturers who are really one in the same and all there "take away your weapons garbage". They are both laughing all the way to the bank.

[blueash]

1. Your assumption is incorrect. The New Jersey law, previously cited, includes a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers.

.

As my signature says ...

Carl, your statement is incorrect.

The NJ law, if you would actually read it says this about which "smart guns " will be issued to New Jersey police officers and some others:

The provisions of this section shall not apply to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to: (1) State and local law enforcement officers of this State; (2) federal law enforcement officers and any other federal officers and employees required to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties and (3) members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard.

Now Carl, tell me where did you get your information? You certainly told us a fact that is not a fact. What other of your facts should we believe. I have not checked them and leave it to you to post your evidence of veracity.

[Bogie Shooter]

I support the right of citizens to own firearms,I am an owner myself. But I do detest those people that go overboard with it especially the NRA which I am no longer a member. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to take away. There has been a record surge in firearms production and transactions. Between 2005 and 2013 NFA applications rose by more than 380%. There were 8.5 million guns produced in 2012 alone. In 2011 there were 6.5 million guns produced. This is a dramatic and unprcedented growth in the firearms and ammunition industry. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to try and take. Keep listening to the NRA and the gun manufacturers who are really one in the same and all there "take away your weapons garbage". They are both laughing all the way to the bank.

Well said.
Congress cannot even pass a budget. How in the hell would they pass a law to collect all the guns in the US?

[Carl in Tampa]

I support the right of citizens to own firearms,I am an owner myself. But I do detest those people that go overboard with it especially the NRA which I am no longer a member. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to take away. There has been a record surge in firearms production and transactions. Between 2005 and 2013 NFA applications rose by more than 380%. There were 8.5 million guns produced in 2012 alone. In 2011 there were 6.5 million guns produced. This is a dramatic and unprcedented growth in the firearms and ammunition industry. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to try and take. Keep listening to the NRA and the gun manufacturers who are really one in the same and all there "take away your weapons garbage". They are both laughing all the way to the bank.

My dad was a youth when the Volstead Act was passed, prohibiting alcoholic beverages. He told me that up until that time he had never had a beer. But, when the government told him he couldn't have any he immediately started drinking it.

An identical reaction occurred when the first "assault weapon" ban was passed. Millions of people who had no interest in owning an AR-15 rifle, being told that they would soon be denied the right to buy one, went right out and bought one.

A similar surge in the purchase of firearms occurred when Obama ran for president. It was perceived that if elected he would be an anti-gun President, so gun sales surged. As his Attorney General periodically made statements that seemed to indicate that anti-gun legislation might be proposed, new surges of gun sales occurred.

And now the price of ammunition has skyrocketed, when it can be found at all. There is a severe shortage of ammunition. Factors include millions of rounds more than usual being purchased by the Department of Homeland Security to be stockpiled in the United States; the policy of the Defense Department to shred used military ammunition brass rather than selling it to commercial reloaders to be used to provide lower cost reloaded ammunition to the civilian market; and the government-forced closing of the last existing lead smelting operation in the United States.

One need not be a conspiracy theorist to discern that that government policy continues to be in opposition to the interest of gun owners.

------------------

And, regarding that disparaging remark about taking away our firearms, see my original post entitled Molan Labe in the forum of Non-Villages Discussions.

It puts that allegation in perspective.

LATE ADDITION: The Moderator removed my post entitled Molan Labe due to having classified it as "political." Since I expressed no opinions in that posting, I must assume that it was removed because the people who I identified as supporting total gun bans were elected politicians.

.

[Cajulian]

Check the Canadian and UK polls on the topic of governments ability to confiscate guns and you will see that majority of citizens wish they had never given up their rights of gun ownership.

Have you seen Canadian stories like the one where a young student drew a gun at school and the next thing that happens is the government raids the parents home with a swat team only to find that the homeowner/parent did not own any firearms.

Is that the type of government you want in the U.S.? We are already having inappropriate swat team raids now in the U.S. Even when there are appropriate investigations that warrant home raids, often our government organizations make mistakes, raiding the wrong home and destroy innocent people's property and traumatizing innocent people.

Anyone that is informed, knows that every state in the U.S. has studied and proven many times over, that violent gun crimes have come down substantially with legally armed citizens. If you don't believe this, then you live in an ideological bubble.

Would your wish be, for all cities to be like Chicago, with the most gun control in the nation on law abiding citizens along with their perennial leading gun crimes in the country by criminals.

I 100% agree with Carl. He at least is very well informed and balances the pros and cons of citizens owned firearms. He speaks from experience. For myself, coming from an International based set of experiences in some pretty extreme technologies, and with the largest american company we have, I fully agree that with these Smart Gun technologies, there are many pitfalls in their reliable use.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the ideological intent to provide as much safety as possible with the use of firearms. The problem is that, they are not ready for implementation and reliable use. Like many laws passed in this country, politicians propose and legislate laws that do nothing to solve the problem other than to make a political statement.

[Carl in Tampa]

As my signature says ...

Carl, your statement is incorrect.

The NJ law, if you would actually read it says this about which "smart guns " will be issued to New Jersey police officers and some others:

The provisions of this section shall not apply to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to: (1) State and local law enforcement officers of this State; (2) federal law enforcement officers and any other federal officers and employees required to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties and (3) members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard.

Now Carl, tell me where did you get your information? You certainly told us a fact that is not a fact. What other of your facts should we believe. I have not checked them and leave it to you to post your evidence of veracity.

Your quote is from Section a.

My information is from Section d. of the same law.

The commission shall issue a report to the Attorney General upon its determination that personalized handguns qualify for use by State and local law enforcement officers. In making this determination, the commission shall consider any advantages and disadvantages to using these weapons in the performance of the official duties of law enforcement officers and shall give due regard to the safety of law enforcement officers and others. The commission shall expire thereafter.

The Attorney General shall be authorized to promulgate rules and regulations that apply the provisions of this section to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to State and local law enforcement officers upon a determination by the commission that personalized handguns qualify for use by State and local law enforcement officers.

----------------------------

Is this too subtle for you?

Initially, the law does not apply to state, local or federal law enforcement officers.

Subsequently, after a committee settles on what "safe guns" are acceptable for law enforcement, the Attorney General can "promulgate rules and regulations" to determine what "safe guns" state and local police will use.

Note that federal officers are not included in the Attorney General's rules and regulations because a State Attorney General cannot exercise authority over federal officers.

THAT is where I got my information.

.

[blueash]

Check the Canadian and UK polls on the topic of governments ability to confiscate guns and you will see that majority of citizens wish they had never given up their rights of gun ownership.

Ok, I'll look that up at your suggestion..

Gallup poll The Right to Bear Arms: U.S. and Canada (http://www.gallup.com/poll/7381/right-bear-arms-us-canada.aspx)

"Canadians were asked, "For each of the following groups, please indicate whether or not you think they should be allowed, by law, to own a gun: the general public." A majority of Canadians (63%) said they do not believe that the general public should be allowed to own a gun, while 36% said it should"

A poll conducted by a gun advocacy group in Canada (CFI) found this:

"The question was phrased as follows:

In Canada private ownership of firearms is legal for hunting, target practice and other recreational purposes. To own a firearm someone must be licensed by the government and cannot have a criminal record or mental instability. Should private ownership of firearms remain legal in Canada or should private firearms ownership be banned entirely?

· Private firearms ownership should remain legal in Canada - 75.8% -agreed"

Do not confuse that poll with the earlier. They are not inconsistent. One asks if all guns which are presently limited and registered be taken away. The Canadian answer to that is no. The Gallop asks about the general public having guns (in other words not limited to registered hunting, etc as in the second poll), and the Gallop poll says No to allowing it. Please cite your evidence that the majority of Canadians wish they had not given up their gun rights (there is no right to bear arms in Canada and never has been by the way, the law changes as do other laws over the years, but there are no "gun rights")

Turning to England
There was a recent online poll, in other words people who wanted to click could, this is the opposite of a random poll, and the online poll was for a newspaper identified as consistently conservative (think Fox News like). In that poll 85% wanted to repeal the ban on handguns. What result would you expect if the poll were limited to Fox News viewers in the US?

Here is a poll done in a neutral manner:

"ICM interviewed a random sample of 1000 adults aged 18+, by telephone between 31 May and 1 June 2006. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules." Its conclusions were:

" 60 per cent of people think it is too easy to get a gun in the UK. "

So I would conclude, Canadians polls do not show the majority wish to change the gun control policy. I could not find an English poll exactly asking about reversing their gun control, but offer the one above which says that 60% think it is too easy to get a gun. Do you have a non-biased poll to support your claim? Or were you just "shooting from the hip?"

[Steve9930]

No, it is about SAFETY. Just think of the large number of children who take a gun to school just to show it off; think of the children who find a parent's gun and shoot one of their friends as a game; think of a burglar stealing your pistol. Without the safety device, the guns are useless and deaths are prevented.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that safety devices cannot be placed on guns. No one is taking guns away from you. If a person can afford a gun, they can afford a safety device so that arguement is out the window.

It is all about SAFETY.

Do you agree that the store owner should have been threatened with having his store burned down and with his life being threatened?

These smart guns are one of those devices that sound good but technically will be a bust. Lets look at the first point. Guns in the hands of youngsters or accidental shooting. Where does the fault lay? It falls on the gun owner. If you choose to own a weapon, then you choose to make sure the weapon is properly secured. In all the cases I've read the reason it happened was because the gun owner did not take the proper precautions to secure the weapon. Whether that be a smart gun or not it will not change. Now when it comes to criminals stealing your weapon, All locking devices can be unlocked. So while the smart gun may sound good, its basically a political football and a waste of time and expense. Education and training these are the answers to curbing accidents. Kids are curious. If your going to own a gun then every one in the family needs to be educated on the proper use of a firearm and the proper handling of a firearm. Once you take away the mystery you take away the curiosity. When your not around lock it up. All my children who are now grown and all my grandchildren know how to properly handle a firearm. They know it is not a toy. They know it can do great harm if not treated with respect. They also know how to use it correctly. But it is still locked up so they cannot gain access without me being there.

As for the accident statistics there are far more items that need attention to curbing injury. Both sides the anti-gun and the pro-gun are feed nonsense by the zealots that run the campaigns on each side.

Now as for the people that threatened the store owner, they are as bad as the ones that threaten gun owners. As far as I'm concerned they are criminals. That includes both sides of the fence.

And I agree it is about safety but safety starts with the person not the object. Until we realize that fact there will be these useless discussions that produce no solutions.

Lets start with enforcing the laws that cover negligence and I have read a few incidents that could have been prosecuted under existing laws. Lets start with enforcing the firearm laws already on the books.

[Indydealmaker]

All polls are too easily rigged by the way they are worded or by the audience polled.

The anti-gun movement claims that passing laws outlawing guns will control gun crime. Everybody conveniently ignores the fact that laws are obeyed ONLY by law abiding citizens. Gun crime will not abate, but law abiding citizens will be a more easy target.

NO form of prohibition has ever worked in this country...alcohol, drugs, cheating on a spouse, running red lights, speeding, rape, murder by any means, child abuse. All of the forgoing have laws or humane condemnations which effect to prohibit, but all are rampant and growing.

Predators will always hunt the weak. ALWAYS.

[Steve9930]

Ok, I'll look that up at your suggestion..

Gallup poll The Right to Bear Arms: U.S. and Canada (http://www.gallup.com/poll/7381/right-bear-arms-us-canada.aspx)

"Canadians were asked, "For each of the following groups, please indicate whether or not you think they should be allowed, by law, to own a gun: the general public." A majority of Canadians (63%) said they do not believe that the general public should be allowed to own a gun, while 36% said it should"

A poll conducted by a gun advocacy group in Canada (CFI) found this:

"The question was phrased as follows:

In Canada private ownership of firearms is legal for hunting, target practice and other recreational purposes. To own a firearm someone must be licensed by the government and cannot have a criminal record or mental instability. Should private ownership of firearms remain legal in Canada or should private firearms ownership be banned entirely?

· Private firearms ownership should remain legal in Canada - 75.8% -agreed"

Do not confuse that poll with the earlier. They are not inconsistent. One asks if all guns which are presently limited and registered be taken away. The Canadian answer to that is no. The Gallop asks about the general public having guns (in other words not limited to registered hunting, etc as in the second poll), and the Gallop poll says No to allowing it. Please cite your evidence that the majority of Canadians wish they had not given up their gun rights (there is no right to bear arms in Canada and never has been by the way, the law changes as do other laws over the years, but there are no "gun rights")

Turning to England
There was a recent online poll, in other words people who wanted to click could, this is the opposite of a random poll, and the online poll was for a newspaper identified as consistently conservative (think Fox News like). In that poll 85% wanted to repeal the ban on handguns. What result would you expect if the poll were limited to Fox News viewers in the US?

Here is a poll done in a neutral manner:

"ICM interviewed a random sample of 1000 adults aged 18+, by telephone between 31 May and 1 June 2006. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules." Its conclusions were:

" 60 per cent of people think it is too easy to get a gun in the UK. "

So I would conclude, Canadians polls do not show the majority wish to change the gun control policy. I could not find an English poll exactly asking about reversing their gun control, but offer the one above which says that 60% think it is too easy to get a gun. Do you have a non-biased poll to support your claim? Or were you just "shooting from the hip?"

I'm neither Canadian or British and what they do is their business. In America the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution allows the citizen to own firearms. Until that's changed then the guns stay with the people.

[Bucco]

All polls are too easily rigged by the way they are worded or by the audience polled.

The anti-gun movement claims that passing laws outlawing guns will control gun crime. Everybody conveniently ignores the fact that laws are obeyed ONLY by law abiding citizens. Gun crime will not abate, but law abiding citizens will be a more easy target.

NO form of prohibition has ever worked in this country...alcohol, drugs, cheating on a spouse, running red lights, speeding, rape, murder by any means, child abuse. All of the forgoing have laws or humane condemnations which effect to prohibit, but all are rampant and growing.

Predators will always hunt the weak. ALWAYS.

Not sure if I am presenting the same view as yours. I agree with you.

So many issues today, in my opinion, masquerade and keep beneath the surface this countries underlying moral decay. It, to me, is "the elephant in the room" in so many cases on most issues that we debate from guns to birth control and race.

We will not address our lessening morals, thus we talk and talk on anything else

[blueash]

I'm neither Canadian or British and what they do is their business. In America the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution allows the citizen to own firearms. Until that's changed then the guns stay with the people.

I posted the information in response to a person's claim that polls of Canadians and Brits now showed they regretted having gun control in their nations. I have posted several times on this thread, but only to refute unfounded or inaccurate or using a kind word "misstatements" by some pro-gun posters. Your statement is accurate although I might modify it to say until the interpretation of the second amendment is changed, that whole well regulated part that the Robert's court felt was not important in its rulings.

[Topspinmo]

I own a lot of smart guns:wave: they go off and hit what I am aiming at.:crap2::crap2:

[Steve9930]

I posted the information in response to a person's claim that polls of Canadians and Brits now showed they regretted having gun control in their nations. I have posted several times on this thread, but only to refute unfounded or inaccurate or using a kind word "misstatements" by some pro-gun posters. Your statement is accurate although I might modify it to say until the interpretation of the second amendment is changed, that whole well regulated part that the Robert's court felt was not important in its rulings.

There are two debates which will always be very lively, Politics and Gun Control. There is a balance between gun ownership and reasonable regulation. However because we have these two groups on the far edges of the debate which shout the loudest nothing ever gets done. There are two types of weapons pistols and long guns. I believe the 2nd Amendment was written with the long gun in mind. There are more problems with pistols then long guns. I've been around firearms all my life and I just had to chuckle when I went to Wal-Mart and saw all the pistol ammunition gone. It was also interesting on how many people I talked to that actually believe the Government was coming for their guns. In this day of the internet there is so much miss information its unreal. The problem is much larger then the actual device used. We seem to have become more violent over the years. One thing I know for sure the debate rages on with few solutions.

[MikeV]

I have a suggestion. If you don't like law abiding citizens owning guns for self defense why not move to NJ or even worse NY. That should make you so much happier.

[Carl in Tampa]

I have posted several times on this thread, but only to refute unfounded or inaccurate or using a kind word "misstatements" by some pro-gun posters.

The Crusade to refute the errors of the pro-gun posters is noble, indeed.

Perhaps you could spare a moment to correct an error of your own which has been called to your attention, but which you ignore.

-------------------

My statement was simple: " The New Jersey law, previously cited, includes a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers."

You responded , quoting my statement verbatim, and (erroneously) said: "Carl, your statement is incorrect."

You went on to cite one section (only) of the law. You then continued to editoralize: "Now Carl, tell me where did you get your information? You certainly told us a fact that is not a fact. What other of your facts should we believe. I have not checked them and leave it to you to post your evidence of veracity."

I responded to your patronizing query with a direct, cut-and-paste quote from the law you cited, showing that a later section of the law contained a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers."

It provided that the Attorney General could set rules and regulations for the state and local police to carry "smart guns" on duty.

So, you see, my statement was correct, and you were wrong.

A simple acknowledgement of that fact would be a nice gesture on your part.

.

[buggyone]

The issue is of safety that the smart technology will provide. If a child takes a gun and aims it at a friend in play - it will not fire. If a burglar finds your gun and steals it - it will not fire.

The issues of the government hacking your smart code is paranoia to the hilt.

[Indydealmaker]

The issue is of safety that the smart technology will provide. If a child takes a gun and aims it at a friend in play - it will not fire. If a burglar finds your gun and steals it - it will not fire.

The issues of the government hacking your smart code is paranoia to the hilt.

So was the prospect of the government recording all of your phone calls.

Hacking that phone would be child's play. However, the more likely scenario is the jamming of the bluetooth transmission, not necessarily by the government but by anyone who knows that as a law abiding gun owner, the only way you can defend yourself is by a "flawed" technology.

[Carl in Tampa]

The issue is of safety that the smart technology will provide. If a child takes a gun and aims it at a friend in play - it will not fire. If a burglar finds your gun and steals it - it will not fire.

The issues of the government hacking your smart code is paranoia to the hilt.

Of course simply putting the gun lock, that comes with the purchase of the gun, on the gun will have the same result.

Locking the gun in an inexpensive gun safe will also keep the gun out of the hands of children.

Did you notice that in the New Jersey "safe gun" law that blueash made such a big deal of linking, the police don't have to carry a "safe gun" until a committee decides whether or not they are reliable? That's because it is unproven technology.

I am not going to put my ability to defend myself in the hands of unproven technology.

Your belief in unproven technology is touching.....but flawed.

.

[buggyone]

[QUOTE=Carl in Tampa;873547]

I am not going to put my ability to defend myself in the hands of unproven technology.

Your belief in unproven technology is touching.....but flawed.

------------

You honestly think you NEED a pistol to defend yourself in The Villages? Where do you go that you need a pistol to defend yourself?

[upstate]

I have a suggestion. If you don't like law abiding citizens owning guns for self defense why not move to NJ or even worse NY. That should make you so much happier.
Let's not forget Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland and Rhode Island.

[Carl in Tampa]

You honestly think you NEED a pistol to defend yourself in The Villages? Where do you go that you need a pistol to defend yourself?

You might direct that inquiry to The Villages residents who have experienced having burglars enter their homes while the homeowners were in their bedrooms.

Besides which, I don't stay in The Villages 24/7/365.


------------------

It did not escape my notice that you had no answer for using the gun locks and putting the guns in inexpensive safes.


.

[MikeV]

[QUOTE=Carl in Tampa;873547]

I am not going to put my ability to defend myself in the hands of unproven technology.

Your belief in unproven technology is touching.....but flawed.

------------

You honestly think you NEED a pistol to defend yourself in The Villages? Where do you go that you need a pistol to defend yourself?

What business is it of yours why, when or where I feel I need to carry a firearm? Like I've said before about these threads - If you don't like the laws that allow us to own or carry a firearm change the Constitution, oh yeah good luck with that!

[ilovetv]

".....Hacking poses a particularly big threat in high-pressure situations, Johnson said. If police electronic gun security information is stolen like Target’s customer credit card information was this year, he said, the results could be devastating.

Some smart gun models including the Armatix iP1 rely on radio-frequency identification chips -- frequently used on building security system key cards -- which can be hacked and altered. Johnson said it would only be a matter of time before criminals would be willing to pay big bucks for breach technology.

Armatix did not respond to multiple requests for comment...."

Read more: Police wary about 'smart' guns see malfunction and hacking potential - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/19/Smart-gun-technology-has-promise-but-needs-to-be-reliable-police-say/5001395178358/#ixzz30uDE6axU)

[buggyone]

[QUOTE=Carl in Tampa;873547]

I am not going to put my ability to defend myself in the hands of unproven technology.

Your belief in unproven technology is touching.....but flawed.

------------

You honestly think you NEED a pistol to defend yourself in The Villages? Where do you go that you need a pistol to defend yourself?

What business is it of yours why, when or where I feel I need to carry a firearm? Like I've said before about these threads - If you don't like the laws that allow us to own or carry a firearm change the Constitution, oh yeah good luck with that!

Who said anything in this thread about not allowing you to own or carry a gun? :shrug:

[Steve9930]

Criminals have no fences or schedule. Evil strikes everywhere. The difference, do you want to be a victim of it? Concealed carry is only one of the weapons used to protect ourselves the other is street smarts. The police are there to take the report.

[Carl in Tampa]

Criminals have no fences or schedule. Evil strikes everywhere. The difference, do you want to be a victim of it? Concealed carry is only one of the weapons used to protect ourselves the other is street smarts. The police are there to take the report.

:agree:

That's usually the case. Happily, there are sometimes exceptions.

Back in the days before direct deposit of paychecks was commonplace, the Secret Service issued a bi-weekly paycheck, which most agents took to the bank to deposit.

An agent friend of mine was standing in line in the bank when the man in front of him drew a gun and pushed a note to the cashier. He was robbing the bank!

My friend took no action in the bank, but followed the robber outside. The agent then announced himself as a federal agent and ordered the robber to surrender.

The robber began to run away and the agent fired an (unauthorized) "warning shot" into the air. The shot struck an overhead street light, raining broken glass down on the robber, who then surrendered.

Sometimes you are in the right place at the right time.

:boom:

[Cedwards38]

Why would the NRA "blast" the gun shop owner? Isn't their real issue with people who might want to purchase such a weapon? Adults can decide if they want one of those or not without the NRA getting involved!:shrug:

[Indydealmaker]

Why would the NRA "blast" the gun shop owner? Isn't their real issue with people who might want to purchase such a weapon? Adults can decide if they want one of those or not without the NRA getting involved!:shrug:

The pressure on the gun shop owner was due to the fact that New Jersey had passed a law that required ALL gun owners to use such smart gun technology within 90 days after it became available. This is in violation of the 2nd ammendment. If you can't afford it, you lose your guns and your right to protect yourself.

[buggyone]

The pressure on the gun shop owner was due to the fact that New Jersey had passed a law that required ALL gun owners to use such smart gun technology within 90 days after it became available. This is in violation of the 2nd ammendment. If you can't afford it, you lose your guns and your right to protect yourself.


Steve,
I fail to see how smart gun technology is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The smart technology would be required on new purchases and not on existing ones in your home, office, car, pocket, or wheelchair side compartment.

Has your (or NRA) theory of violation of 2nd Amendment been taken to the US Supreme Court for their interpretation?

The "pressure" on the store owner included threats of burning his store and of killing him. Please tell me you do not agree with that and that the cowards who threatened the owner are criminals.

[Indydealmaker]

Steve,
I fail to see how smart gun technology is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The smart technology would be required on new purchases and not on existing ones in your home, office, car, pocket, or wheelchair side compartment.

Has your (or NRA) theory of violation of 2nd Amendment been taken to the US Supreme Court for their interpretation?

The "pressure" on the store owner included threats of burning his store and of killing him. Please tell me you do not agree with that and that the cowards who threatened the owner are criminals.

The 2nd amendment does not allow for control of what kind of guns Americans are allowed to own.

The alleged threats of violence were NOT from the NRA. Regardless, I do not condone such threats.

[justjim]

Let's not forget Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland and Rhode Island.

Take Illinois out as they have passed a new concealed carry law.

[Carl in Tampa]

So, Buggyone:

Which of the unproven "smart gun" technologies do you like:

1. RFID
2. Ultrasonic
3. Biometric with Fingerprint
4. Biometric, with palmprint, grip strength, etc.
5. Magnetic
6. Some combination of the above with a PIN number.

And which system do you prefer:

a. Physical block
b. Electronic relay block
c. Physical activator
d. Electronic relay activator

And what activation methodology:

w. Ring.
x. Bracelet or watch.
y. Ultrasonic emitter.
z. Physical (under the skin) implant.

And would you want a system which permits a single activation to turn on, having the gun work for anyone who it is handed to after activation or would you want it to require reactivation after each use? Either method can be implemented.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????

Don't just say "whatever works" because none of these and no combination of these systems is proven reliable enough for law enforcement or personal self defense use.

As part of the development process, specific goals should include a system that:

* Is impervious to external magnetic fields.
* Is impervious to external RF signals.
* Works both while bare handed and while wearing gloves.
* Works in extreme heat and extreme cold, both of which could deactivate batteries.
* Works if dropped in water, snow, sand, mud or dirt.
* Works if the pistol is drenched in blood.
* Works with either hand, in case the opposite hand or arm is wounded.
* Can't be defeated by simply disassembling the gun and removing or modifying the device that is inhibiting firing.

---------------------

Again, I assure you that whatever system one man can develop another man can defeat. That's why the profession of safe cracking still exists, and explains the incredible success of computer hackers even against the United States Department of Defense.

By now I hope you see that your energy in promoting "Smart guns" would better be utilized by urging gun owners to utilize gun locks and gun safes to keep their firearms secure.


.

[buggyone]

So, Buggyone:

Which of the unproven "smart gun" technologies do you like:

1. RFID
2. Ultrasonic
3. Biometric with Fingerprint
4. Biometric, with palmprint, grip strength, etc.
5. Magnetic
6. Some combination of the above with a PIN number.

And which system do you prefer:

a. Physical block
b. Electronic relay block
c. Physical activator
d. Electronic relay activator

And what activation methodology:

w. Ring.
x. Bracelet or watch.
y. Ultrasonic emitter.
z. Physical (under the skin) implant.

And would you want a system which permits a single activation to turn on, having the gun work for anyone who it is handed to after activation or would you want it to require reactivation after each use? Either method can be implemented.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????

Don't just say "whatever works" because none of these and no combination of these systems is proven reliable enough for law enforcement or personal self defense use.

As part of the development process, specific goals should include a system that:

* Is impervious to external magnetic fields.
* Is impervious to external RF signals.
* Works both while bare handed and while wearing gloves.
* Works in extreme heat and extreme cold, both of which could deactivate batteries.
* Works if dropped in water, snow, sand, mud or dirt.
* Works if the pistol is drenched in blood.
* Works with either hand, in case the opposite hand or arm is wounded.
* Can't be defeated by simply disassembling the gun and removing or modifying the device that is inhibiting firing.

---------------------

Again, I assure you that whatever system one man can develop another man can defeat. That's why the profession of safe cracking still exists, and explains the incredible success of computer hackers even against the United States Department of Defense.

By now I hope you see that your energy in promoting "Smart guns" would better be utilized by urging gun owners to utilize gun locks and gun safes to keep their firearms secure.


.


Whatever

[buggyone]

The 2nd amendment does not allow for control of what kind of guns Americans are allowed to own.

The alleged threats of violence were NOT from the NRA. Regardless, I do not condone such threats.


Check the National Firearms Act of 1936 and you will see some controls on types of guns allowed.

[DaleMN]

Whatever

:clap2:

[blueash]

The pressure on the gun shop owner was due to the fact that New Jersey had passed a law that required ALL gun owners to use such smart gun technology within 90 days after it became available. This is in violation of the 2nd ammendment. If you can't afford it, you lose your guns and your right to protect yourself.

As was clearly explained earlier in this thread, 90 days is not the same as 3 years. The NJ law takes 3 years for implementation. It also absolutely and completely does NOT require ALL "gun owners to use such smart technology within 90 days" It very simply limits future sales of new guns to those with whatever smart technology has been authorized by the AG. There is a clear definition of the degree of reliability required for listing. The gun must fire with the same reliability as a non-smart gun. You gun owners can certainly attest that every weapon has a failure to fire rate. So the argument about my smart gun is not going to fire as reliably as my stupid gun fires is moot as such a gun does not fit the requirement to be sold. My bold

http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=144757&Depth=4&TD=WRAP&advquery=2C%3a39-1%20%20Definitions&headingswithhits=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&rank=&record={1A38}&softpage=Doc_Frame_Pg42&wordsaroundhits=2&x=34&y=12&zz=
2C:39-1 dd

"Personalized handgun" means a handgun which incorporates within its design, and as part of its original manufacture, technology which automatically limits its operational use and which cannot be readily deactivated, so that it may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user. ... No make or model of a handgun shall be deemed to be a "personalized handgun" unless the Attorney General has determined, through testing or other reasonable means, that the handgun meets any reliability standards that the manufacturer may require for its commercially available handguns that are not personalized or, if the manufacturer has no such reliability standards, the handgun meets the reliability standards generally used in the industry for commercially available handguns.

[Steve9930]

Steve,
I fail to see how smart gun technology is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The smart technology would be required on new purchases and not on existing ones in your home, office, car, pocket, or wheelchair side compartment.

Has your (or NRA) theory of violation of 2nd Amendment been taken to the US Supreme Court for their interpretation?

The "pressure" on the store owner included threats of burning his store and of killing him. Please tell me you do not agree with that and that the cowards who threatened the owner are criminals.

Smart gun technology one will never work well, and two solves nothing. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

[buggyone]

Smart gun technology one will never work well, and two solves nothing. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

I agree it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. As for the technology never working well or solving nothing, that is left for the experts.

[Carl in Tampa]

Whatever

With that (non)response to a reasonably presented question, you have lost all credibility on this subject.

:wave:

[ilovetv]

Why would anyone want their police or self-defense weapon to depend on stored electricity (battery) and a bluetooth or RFID device, all of which can fail to communicate with the gun even if both devices are clean, dry, the right temperature, etc....when we all know how often our bluetooth devices fail to connect immediately or not at all until we shut down and reset/reboot both devices??

[Steve9930]

I agree it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. As for the technology never working well or solving nothing, that is left for the experts.

I usually don't put this forward but your are getting an answer from someone who actually does have some background and education in designing such systems. Smart Gun Technology will never be implemented for the general public because of all the gotchas, the cost, and reliability. There is no market for them. The whole idea of smart weapons is politically driven and nothing more. Self defense weapon systems for the average police officer or individual need to be simple. There is a saying in the design field we always tried to follow, KISS.
The best self defense firearm for protection from the reliability stand point is the revolver. However there are semi-automatics with a very good track record and provide for more firepower. The only thing you know about a semi-auto is its going to go bang at least one time. The rest is a question mark. Some semi-autos are very particular about the ammunition used. Good quality ammunition in any weapon is a must. Now try to add in an electronic lock. The fact you would put someone in harms way with a complicated piece of electronics that may or may not allow the gun to fire just makes absolutely no sense. Especially when the whole idea is politically driven and the cause of firearm accidents is always negligence. There are far more pressing problems to solve.

[Carl in Tampa]

I usually don't put this forward but your are getting an answer from someone who actually does have some background and education in designing such systems. Smart Gun Technology will never be implemented for the general public because of all the gotchas, the cost, and reliability. There is no market for them. The whole idea of smart weapons is politically driven and nothing more. Self defense weapon systems for the average police officer or individual need to be simple. There is a saying in the design field we always tried to follow, KISS.
The best self defense firearm for protection from the reliability stand point is the revolver. However there are semi-automatics with a very good track record and provide for more firepower. The only thing you know about a semi-auto is its going to go bang at least one time. The rest is a question mark. Some semi-autos are very particular about the ammunition used. Good quality ammunition in any weapon is a must. Now try to add in an electronic lock. The fact you would put someone in harms way with a complicated piece of electronics that may or may not allow the gun to fire just makes absolutely no sense. Especially when the whole idea is politically driven and the cause of firearm accidents is always negligence. There are far more pressing problems to solve.

:agree: :agree: :agree:

I joined the Secret Service after the Kennedy assassination and was involved in the selection of the submachine gun to be used in the motorcade follow-up car. In evaluating the possibilities there were three principal considerations; cartridge performance, simplicity of operation, and dependability of operation.

With regard to Steve's observation about self-defense handguns, it is arguably true that those who are not highly experienced would be better served with a revolver.

Over a decade ago, while still active in law enforcement, I became enamored with the Glock semi-automatic pistol. It has no external thumb safety which can be inadvertently left in a position where the gun will not fire. As you press the trigger you release the external safety, and the internal "safe action" components do not cock to release the firing pin, and to move aside the internal safety, until the trigger is pulled fully back to the firing position.

I have fired thousands of rounds through the Glock with no misfires and no jams. One caution: do not fire lead bullets or reloads in a Glock. To do so voids the warranty.

The Glock barrel is very tight for the caliber and lead builds up in the barrel quickly if lead bullets are used.

.

[Steve9930]

:agree: :agree: :agree:

I joined the Secret Service after the Kennedy assassination and was involved in the selection of the submachine gun to be used in the motorcade follow-up car. In evaluating the possibilities there were three principal considerations; cartridge performance, simplicity of operation, and dependability of operation.

With regard to Steve's observation about self-defense handguns, it is arguably true that those who are not highly experienced would be better served with a revolver.

Over a decade ago, while still active in law enforcement, I became enamored with the Glock semi-automatic pistol. It has no external thumb safety which can be inadvertently left in a position where the gun will not fire. As you press the trigger you release the external safety, and the internal "safe action" components do not cock to release the firing pin, and to move aside the internal safety, until the trigger is pulled fully back to the firing position.

I have fired thousands of rounds through the Glock with no misfires and no jams. One caution: do not fire lead bullets or reloads in a Glock. To do so voids the warranty.

The Glock barrel is very tight for the caliber and lead builds up in the barrel quickly if lead bullets are used.

.

Carl, I agree if your looking for a good semi-auto pistol the Glock is an excellent choice of a reliability, well designed semi-auto pistol. In a stressed situation no one needs to be worried about whether the batteries are good in their dongle or pistol grip. Many will also miss the point in your last post: "I have fired thousands of rounds" Too many people buy a weapon and then very seldom train with it. I would put more effort into training and educating gun owners and perspective owners then money spent on a device that is just not practical for a defensive weapon. This is one of those things that looks good on paper but in reality is far more trouble then the problem it was designed to correct.

I spent over 40 years of my life designing all sorts of systems and there is no such animal as a smart gun. My son is a Officer in the Dayton Ohio area and I hope he never is put into the position of having to rely on one of those devices.

[Carl in Tampa]

As was clearly explained earlier in this thread, 90 days is not the same as 3 years. The NJ law takes 3 years for implementation. It also absolutely and completely does NOT require ALL "gun owners to use such smart technology within 90 days" It very simply limits future sales of new guns to those with whatever smart technology has been authorized by the AG. There is a clear definition of the degree of reliability required for listing. The gun must fire with the same reliability as a non-smart gun. You gun owners can certainly attest that every weapon has a failure to fire rate. So the argument about my smart gun is not going to fire as reliably as my stupid gun fires is moot as such a gun does not fit the requirement to be sold. My bold

http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=144757&Depth=4&TD=WRAP&advquery=2C%3a39-1%20%20Definitions&headingswithhits=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&rank=&record={1A38}&softpage=Doc_Frame_Pg42&wordsaroundhits=2&x=34&y=12&zz=
2C:39-1 dd

"Personalized handgun" means a handgun which incorporates within its design, and as part of its original manufacture, technology which automatically limits its operational use and which cannot be readily deactivated, so that it may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user. ... No make or model of a handgun shall be deemed to be a "personalized handgun" unless the Attorney General has determined, through testing or other reasonable means, that the handgun meets any reliability standards that the manufacturer may require for its commercially available handguns that are not personalized or, if the manufacturer has no such reliability standards, the handgun meets the reliability standards generally used in the industry for commercially available handguns.

OH LOOK! blueash is back posting. Here he is at post #58 and he has not yet responded to my post #37.

You may recall that he had ridiculed a statement that I made, and because he believed that "fact" was in error he questioned all the "facts" that I had presented.

The problem is, as proven in post #37 with a direct quote from the law, my fact was correct.

Blueash, who says he posts on this thread only to "correct" the pro-gun posters, can't seem to bring himself to acknowledge that he was wrong when he said my statement was incorrect.

Wonder why....................

.

[janmcn]

Attacking other posters is not allowed on this forum.

[Carl in Tampa]

I agree it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. As for the technology never working well or solving nothing, that is left for the experts.

Buggyone, you've been talking to the experts. You just don't seem to realize it and you fail to accept what you are being told.

.

[Carl in Tampa]

Attacking other posters is not allowed on this forum.

Tell it to blueash.

.

[Steve9930]

When it comes to guns and politics I believe there are no answers. Just endless debate. Isn't life interesting?

[buggyone]

Buggyone, you've been talking to the experts. You just don't seem to realize it and you fail to accept what you are being told.

.

Personally, I cannot see any purpose in keeping this thread going. One group will not accept smart guns are being made for safety and believe they cannot work. The other group believes the opposite. No matter who is right, the other group will not believe or accept it.

I, personally, feel bad for the Maryland gun shop owner who was terrorized into not selling a legal product.

[Moderator]

Please discuss the topic and not each other. If the personally directed posts continue, the thread will be closed.

[blueash]

OH LOOK! blueash is back posting. Here he is at post #58 and he has not yet responded to my post #37.

You may recall that he had ridiculed a statement that I made, and because he believed that "fact" was in error he questioned all the "facts" that I had presented.

The problem is, as proven in post #37 with a direct quote from the law, my fact was correct.

Blueash, who says he posts on this thread only to "correct" the pro-gun posters, can't seem to bring himself to acknowledge that he was wrong when he said my statement was incorrect.

Wonder why....................

.

I post when I know an answer, I don't speculate, I try not to claim any expertise if I don't have it. I am not a lawyer nor a legislator. I believe but do not know that you are misunderstanding the NJ law. I believe it allows but does not require the use of smart guns by police once they have been approved by a special panel to look specifically at the issue from a police perspective. I have written to a member of the NJ legislature asking for a clarification who was involved in the drafting of the legislation and I await a reply from that legislator or his staff. So no, I did not ignore you. Instead what I did was seek competent advise and information so that I could correctly reply to your contention. Multiple online sites believe as I do that the law exempts police. Here are several examples from pro-gun sites and organizations, but they are not authoritative:

"The NRA did not respond to requests for comment, but Scott L. Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said the technology is flawed, and could put gun owners in danger when it fails. He also questioned why law enforcement officers are exempt.“New Jersey’s smart-gun law is as dumb as it gets,” Bach, of West Milford, said in a statement. “It forces you to use an unproven technology to defend your life, and then exempts the state from liability when the gun goes ‘click’ instead of ‘bang.’ If it’s such a great idea, then law enforcement shouldn’t be exempt, and the free market should be allowed to determine its viability.” - See more at: NJ's 2002 smart-gun law could take effect soon, limit supply - NJ State News - NorthJersey.com (http://www.northjersey.com/news/nj-state-news/nj-s-2002-smart-gun-law-could-take-effect-soon-limit-supply-1.576177#sthash.qWyNyEB0.dpuf)


From Fox News which you might consider authoritative
New Jersey Smart Gun Legislation Enacted | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/12/23/new-jersey-smart-gun-legislation-enacted/)
Under the New Jersey law, the technology will be required in all new handguns sold three years after the state attorney general determines a smart gun prototype is safe and commercially available. Weapons used by law enforcement officers would be exempt.


'Smart gun' law, a first, is signed N.J. becomes the only state to require that guns eventually contain technology that thwarts unauthorized use. - Philly.com (http://articles.philly.com/2002-12-24/news/25358595_1_ceasefire-nj-smart-gun-law-enforcement)
Police organizations supported the law, but lobbied to have themselves exempted from its requirements. The original idea for the smart gun was to protect officers from having their weapons turned against them.
Under the law, a panel would be appointed to review when such weapons could be used by law enforcement

This quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer interprets the law the way I would interpret subsection dd, in that it allows law enforcement to use smart guns but not require. So I will reply with a definitive answer when/if I receive a reply from NJ. I will only add that my understanding of the law is consistent with everything I found in reading multiple website. There will be no requirement for NJ police to adopt smart gun technology, just an option. So we will have to agree to disagree about whether you have proven anything.