Smart Guns

What can I say, I like smart things in life.  I want a smart president, a smart congress, a smart Missus at home.  I even want smart guns.  Not for me personally.  I have no use for guns.  I don’t like them at all.  Nothing about guns, as they are currently used in the wild, wild west, I mean in the United States, makes me happy.

And then I read this, and I think to myself, this is a freaking no brainer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/smart-gun-technology_us_573b278fe4b08f96c1842065

This should be the future of all firearms in our country. Assuming the technology can be perfected, think about how many lives this would save, how many suicides would be prevented, how many crimes of passion and child deaths would be prevented.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do

This seems like a very reasonable compromise between both sides of the gun control debate, which means it will probably never happen.  Oops, there goes that cynicism, creeping in.  What’s the reasonable argument against this?

 

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Smart Guns

  1. The NRA from what I have read is behind the idea. But they want the military and police to test it first and make sure it works correctly, no bugs, no glitches. I am not a big fan of it. What if you want or need to use someone else’s weapon, either for protection or you just want to shoot it. If they can work all those things out, I may not have a problem with it and I am sure the NRA will continue to support it.

    Like

    1. That’s the whole point though. Only the owner can use it. That’s what makes it safe. And smart. If someone feels they need a gun for protection, they can get their own. It would get keep guns out of the hands of the crazy relative who steals it to go on a rampage.

      More importantly though, it’s a compromise, which by definition, should be a little painful for both sides of any argument.

      Like

  2. From a technology perspective it’s not much different from a key fob that you use in your car. While I see this as useful for the police I can’t imagine the military using this outside of training. For the general public it makes a ton of sense and you just have to deal with the fact that it would take a generation for things to roll over.

    Like

  3. In the public world the ring concept is nice but it would become the new “redneck wedding ring”.
    It makes sense as long as it’s used intelligently. I don’t know if a few guys going Trap shooting and want to try each others shotguns need to swap rings…or would want to. It makes sense for other types of weapons that are, in general, weapons you buy when you aren’t a hunter. I don’t hunt or have guns mainly because I already have enough hobbies and if I bought one I think my wife would………shoot me.

    Like

    1. I don’t like the ring concept. I like the fingerprint idea much better. That way, only the person intended can use the gun, period. It seems like a very safe compromise.

      Like

  4. I have heard of both the ring or implant, and the finger print as possible options. I also have heard that the finger print is not very reliable, it does not register correctly every single time which is a big problem. Also finger prints can be faked to bypass the security measure.
    Just remember that for every solution that is proposed there is always a work around.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s