[Erich]

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/business03/072803_business_smartgun.shtml

They're shooting for one-tenth of one percent failure rate. :rolleyes: Would you buy a gun for self-defense that wouldn't go off one time in a thousand? No, not only "wouldn't go off," was totally inert one time in a thousand? :what:

[Old Fuff]

What happens if:

The user’s hand(s) are dirty?

The user’s hand(s) are bloody?

The user is wearing gloves?

Don’t think this is something I’ll buy . . . . .

[Guy B. Meredith]

*SIGH*

Okay, kiddies, listen up one more time and repeat after me. "Smart guns don't work for civilians." And LEOs don't want them.

Any 8th grader or goblin who has made it through grade school knows that they don't need the sensor to activate the unlock circuit. Just short it out or bypass it with a couple of wires and maybe a battery and *PRESTO* the smart mechanism is instant junk.

[Standing Wolf]

If Smith & Wesson wanted my money, it would a.) rescind its deal with the Snopes Clinton-Liar Gore régime, and b.) offer me revolvers without locks.

[gun-fucious]

"Of all the different systems I've seen, Lumidigm has the greatest potential," said Kevin Foley, vice president of product engineering for Smith & Wesson.

Smith & Wesson is working on designing a new type of "smart" handgun. The brains of the .40-caliber gun would allow only specific people to fire it.

It sounds like S&W is working towards holding up their side of the bargain

[Guy B. Meredith]

More like going through the motions. They CAN'T be dumb enough to believe that a general purpose smart gun is viable.

I hope all members of this forum are passing on the word to anti gun types and others that smart guns are a HOAX. If it really becomes a requirement to have these mechanisms we are stuck with a useless weight and a higer price on firearms. Once a law is on the books it is miserable trying to get rid of it, no matter how useless. We need to take every opportunity to demonstrate how easily these can be defeated so that they will never be approved for use under any law.

The author of the article came back to me with a comment that leaves me wondering whether this generation understands the basic universe or is just able to follow instructions to use what someone else put together.

Dan Mayfield:

Guy,
Thanks for reading. In this particular gun, a user cannot de-activate its smart-gun mechanism. I didn't want to go through the process of explaining
it in the article... but here goes...

The gun uses all solid-state electronics. The only moving part is a spring
and a ratchet that move the bullet into the chamber. This gun - making it a new type of smart gun - is all electrically fired. The primer is lit by an electrical arc, not a firing pin. The arc will not fire if the senosr isn't activated.

Its impossible - S&W says- to tamper with the gun because it is all solid
state electrics... The error thing, however, does raise some concerns.
Thanks,
Dan

Me:

Dan,

I think you missed something. The electronics initiate an electric arc. Anyone with a battery and wires can cut into that point and create an arc at will. The smart gun part is only a more elaborate way of providing the battery and wires. I guarantee I can bypass the mechanism. So can any motivated person with elementary school knowledge of elecricity. A few years back you might have seen the children's science show "Watch Mr. Wizard" demonstrating this.

Guy B. Meredith

So...

1. Works for LEO, but LEO don't want it if their lives are to be put in danger one time in a thousand.

2. Works for tots, but if accessible to tots in the first place is accessible to criminals and older children competent enough to bypass the mechanism.

3. Useless in cases of theft--sort of like trigger locks.

So exactly where do smart guns fit in in real life?

[Waitone]

I'll entertain the possibility that I might on a good day think about considering the purchase of such a weapon. . . . . .only after the following are certified to have happened:

--All federal gun-totin' agencies (including poultry inspectors) implement the technology,
--All federal LE agencies adopt it,
--All elements of the US military adopt it,
--All state and local agencies and LE adopt the technology,
--Diane Feinstein, Rosie O'Donnel, William Rasberry, and Chuck Schumer turns in their preferred heaters for the new technology,
--Sarah Brady goes to her son and confiscates the rifle she purchased for him and presents him with a brand new advanced technology personallized firearm.

Do not try to shove something down my throat when you specifically exclude yourself. If it ain't good enough for you, it ain't good enough for me.

[Standing Wolf]

If it ain't good enough for you, it ain't good enough for me.

Amen! Anybody who'd mistake me for a guinea pig needs to see an eye doctor in a serious way.

[Guy B. Meredith]

I will not accept smart guns no matter whether LEO, military, Feinstein or whoever accepts them.

Why? They don't serve a purpose in general use, just concealed carry or LEO use. Period. Even in those uses it prevents immediate use against the owner, but does nothing to prevent theft. I don't use firearms for concealed carry. If something is popular without having an actual purpose we call this a 'fashion' or 'trend' and I do not follow any trends.

They are inferior to lockup in protecting children.
They do absolutely NOTHING to prevent theft or make theft undesirable.
They MIGHT give the owner a false sense of security and thereby put more firearms in the hands of older children and criminals.

[WYO]

S&W and "smart" in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

In Albuquerque, the topic has received attention after an Albuquerque Police Department sergeant was shot with her own gun following a scuffle with a suspect earlier this month.This is the way it should be. If this magic technology is so wonderful, the LEOs should lead the way on adopting it.

When the cops are using "smart" duty weapons, I'll consider it. Not before.

- pdmoderator

[Zundfolge]

When the cops are using "smart" duty weapons, I'll consider it. Not before.


I won't even then because the only reason cops will start using "smart" duty weapons is if they are forced to by some pencil pusher or politician who doesn't have to risk their life using it.

Its a fools argument to say "if you make cops do it then I'll accept it" because it sets the precident that there is a point at which you'll allow them.


However, if you can force us surfs to carry "smart" weapons, then any insurection could be put down pretty much instantly with one of these http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml

[Flying Ashtray]

Anybody remember MagnaTrigger?

Only worked on certain revolvers but was around in the 80's and was craploads better than this stuff.

[Erich]

But you had to wear the groovy '70s mood ring . . . you know, I think the first time I read Massad Ayoob he was singing the praises of the magnatrigger. The groovy '70s ring looked good on him. :p

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

However, if you can force us surfs to carry "smart" weapons, then any insurection could be put down pretty much instantly with one of these http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml Kind of overkill as a riot-control device, if you care anything about what's being bombed.

But then again, Wilson Goode might have appreciated something like that in Philadelphia :neener:

- pdmoderator

[modifiedbrowning]

Lumadigm sounds more like YoYoDyne to me.:D


Bigbooty! Where's my Trenchant bomber?

[geekWithA.45]

has thoughtfully created a mandatory market for these monstrosities.

[dandean316]

I was kind of ready to forgive S&W for the Clinton agreement, but now I don't know. This just sounds like something to appease the critics, but they still won't like it. So S&W says the agreement is invalid now, but yet they are working on this. Then again, maybe they think there is a legit market for it.