Smart Guns: Now Here for those Demanding Gun Safety

You just linked to a list of search results for the word 'ownership' from a website.

Is that how this works now? Just declare that "Research is on MY side" and then link to some random internet search even if it includes studies that contradict your own position?

Which of the 168 results were you referring to because I can already tell you after a very brief glimpse that they aren't all going to be to your liking. Should we just dismiss all of those right now?

 

Sorry old chap had

been using the site for research myself - it is a research database on firearms research - left the search up there to show you how it was done Happy to go toe to toe on research

 

Sure. You can start by producing a study that says guns cause crime. Not a mere correlation but actual CAUSE. 1-2-3 Go!

 

Ah! And sadly, here I was thinking this would be an honest debate - I was going to discuss setting parameters such as
Does the presence of a gun in the household increase the probability of being injured by a gun"

Or something similar - instead I am offered a giant straw man - infers that the author of said straw man may and I say may be unsure of winning in a debate founded on clearer and more honest guidelines

 

Well that was quick. Get back to me if you ever manage to find that study about guns causing crime. Until then, you just keep coming up with those "parameters"...

 

Cling to your straw man - it is about as relevant as the old argument about short skirts causing rape - and so transparent that even the hoplophiles in this forum can see it for what it is

However I have already made one counter offer and am willing to come to a compromise like does an increase in gun decrease crime?

 

Before opening the thread i thought you were talking about this lol



Anyway it's a good idea to me, people have now a way to protect themselves without hurting other people accidentally.

 

"The mythos around guns" was created by liberals in Hollywood and the gun control crowd. Before that it was never a problem.

 

The very first in your list, David Lester found differently in different studies:

 

If you were the all-powerful Queen of your kingdom, Down-Under, what punishments would your have for the leaders of violent street gangs that abuse and molest children 13 and younger who are brought into the gang?

Such gangs here routinely "beat in" young males as all the members join like savages to hit and kick the youngster for a minute or so. Young females are often "raped-in"---as savages typically do.

Do you still think it is more important to focus on banning guns than banning gang activity?

 

Ban both...?

 

wow, what an intellectual response...I thought that "gang" activity was already illegal...musta missed that one, eh?

 

Just the gangs.

 

Would the gangs be a problem without the guns?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2001_7_2/page1.html\

 

"Without the guns"...how would that be accomplished, exactly?

 

Ooooh! Ooh! I know - read the link

 

So you can't answer the question...what a surprise.

 

Or someone cannot/will not read a linked paper not a surprise
I find contrarians rarely will read links

In this case the report re-iterate what I have learnt elsewhere - children are far more likely to be recruited if they have easy access to a gun

 

...which does not answer the question, '"Without the guns"...how would that be accomplished, exactly?'

I mean the paper was riveting and all, with its heady concepts like a child carrying an illegal firearm being more likely to commit a crime than a child who wasn't carrying an illegal firearm. Shocker!

But nothing in your paper addressed what I asked.

 

Here's an update on "smart" guns:
Maryland gun dealer drops plans to sell 'smart gun' after backlash

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.

"I thought what I was doing was right,” he said. "I didn’t want my shop burned down."

The .22-caliber pistol, made by a German company, can only function with an accompanying wristwatch, which is sold separately.

Gun rights advocates worry that the firearm's availability will give a boost to a New Jersey law mandating that all handguns in the state be personalized within three years of a smart gun going on sale anywhere in the U.S.

On Friday, state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, who sponsored the law, said she would ask the legislature to drop the mandate if the National Rifle Association promises not to fight the development and sale of the weapons, The Washington Post reported.

In a brief response, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said the NRA is interested in "full repeal" of the "misguided" law.

After being inunated with phone calls and emails from smart gun opponents, Raymond took to Facebook to post a video in which he vowed not sell the gun.

“I did not know I would be screwing you over,” Raymond said in the video, referring to New Jersey residents. “I’m terribly sorry...You don’t have anything to worry about from me.”

Some of Raymond’s longtime customers told MyFoxDC.com they stand by him.

"It’s ridiculous," customer Vince Roa told the station. "I know Andy has spent a lot of money helping with gun rights in Maryland."

The Oak Tree Gun Club, a Los Angeles-area gun shop, removed the smart gun from its shelves in March after protests. The owners later denied ever carrying the gun.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/0...rops-plans-to-sell-smart-guns-after-backlash/

 

Smart guns are for dumb people. For one, there is no real world experience with them. Second, though they were originally designed for police, police shunned them after proving they were unreliable during testing. Alleged "smart guns" will give people a false sense of security having them around children or even using them for protection.

Making a simple machine much more complicated and failure prone is the epitome of silliness.

 

Yup, police have rejected them for their own use. The executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations has stated that it would only be a matter of time before criminals breached the security features which would essentially compromise all "smart-guns". The executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police has cited reliability issues as the main reason that their organization does not endorse the use of "smart-guns".

The only people in favor of this technology are the companies making them, gun grabber politicians and people who either don't know much about guns or are willing to buy whatever the anti-gun lobby is selling at any given time.

 

Try not to mislead yourself with "chiken or the egg" rationality. I know what you're thinking---that guns and gangs are less prevelant in Australia---and therefore if they were also less prevelant in America, then-------

Guns in America were even more easy to get and about as many people had them prior to 50 years ago. So ask yourself WHY did crime go up exponentially after the early 1960's here?

Did the guns suddenly become over 100 times more deadly between 1960 and 1970?

Or did the criminal justice system here become so liberal that criminals were allowed to form giant gangs with little fear of being punished?

 

A friend of mine saw the Armatix "Smart Gun". Its a disaster.

The intent is for the person to wear a wrist watch (and it is a working time piece) with a transmitter, the transmitter activates or deactivates the pistol. The claim is that only the authorized person (the person with the wrist watch transmitter) will be able to use the pistol.

The watch transmitter has a range of about 1.5 ft when fully charged. Its design range is <1 foot. The idea is that if the gun gets too far from the owner, the gun loses the signal from the watch and the gun deactivates. That means the watch has to be on the shooting hand. If you have the watch on your right hand, you cannot shoot with the gun in your left hand unless you have a 2 handed grip on the gun.

You also have to enter a code to activate the gun, and the code times out. When the code times out, the gun stops working.

Are you holding off an attacker with one hand while trying to shoot with the other hand? Better hope the watch is on the gun hand.


Were you asleep and an intruder woke you up? Better get that watch, type in the code (put your glases on first for the vision impaired), and then grab the handgun. Maybe the intruder will wait for you to get ready before he attacks.

And the gun is only in 22LR. Wonder why? The electronics can't survive the shock of a larger caliber. No surprise. Most of the cost of expensive scopes such as Trijicon's or military night vision rifle scopes is because its not cheap to make items that can survive 1,000's of rounds of high caliber shooting and still be life-savingly reliable.

And then the banners have stepped in again. They want "markers" that will disable all guns within 100 yards of a school. A school is their example because, you know, they don't want to take away your guns, they just want to protect "the children". Banners would not ever think of expanding the use of these gun disabling devices to broad areas or entire cities, would they? I can hear them now, "You can have any gun you want, we aren't taking away any guns! They just have to be "smart" guns that we can turn off" - and they will turn them off, everywhere.

And the cops guns have the same rules so far - banners love to complain that someone might steal the cops gun (as the Boston Marathon bombers did). I can just see Officer Bob walk in on a robbery or get attacked and have to enter his gun code, or the school resource officer run into a shooter with a "stupid" gun that works in the school but Officer Bob's gun is disabled by the "marker".

And of course it won't take long for the criminals to figure out the technology or just buy "jammers" on the black market. And the black market import of "stupid" guns will skyrocket.

In the end, this smart gun BS will have no negative impact on criminals, gangs, drug organizations, or the black market. Just the law abiding Citizens will be hurt.

 

Our dear friend Atty Gen Holder is now wanting federal funding for more of this "Smart Gun Tech"---but I wouldn't trust the electronics to hold up to even the pounding from a 9mm round.

My last point is that all Banners should arm themselves with Smart guns---even if their own personal safety suffers. Otherwise they are hypocrites.